[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #380

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg


48) Quantum Gravity in the ISU:
The wave-particle structure conveys the premise that a standing wave particle is composed of wave energy convergences within a standing wave pattern at the core of the wave-particle, that in turn has “presence” in the gravitational wave energy density profile of space. Each convergence exists only momentarily as the inflowing and out flowing wave energy components of the standing wave pattern play out in the particle’s core space. They form and disburse and reform as governed by the process of quantum action within and around the particle-space (standing wave pattern). Showing this image of a single high energy density “spot” or “hint of mass” again, the shaded area in the center of all of those tiny converging gravitational wave fronts is one of the momentary high energy density “spots” that is in the process of reaching its peak of a single quantum of energy. As noted above, it is one quanta among the perhaps hundreds of millions, or hundreds of billions quanta, depending on the type of wave-particle we are viewing:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_28_57.jpeg




49) The following three images of the wave-particle, its core space, and the wave emissions from the core, as well as the lines that represents inflowing gravitational wave fronts, take a look at, and describe the ISU solution to quantum gravity:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_41_02.jpeg



50) Directionally inflowing gravitational wave energy from distant particles and objects replaces the spherically outflowing wave energy emitted by the core. The lighter “spots” surrounding the core space represent the newly forming high energy density “spots” or “hints of mass”. Notice they are depicted to be much more numerous in the direction of the highest inflowing direction of the gravitational wave energy density profile of space:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_42_23.jpeg



51) In this next image I try to depict the movement of the wave-particle core through the background occupied by the gravitational wave energy density profile of space. I have added a semicircle of six new high energy density spots to image of the wave-particle core in the direction of motion. Each new spot in the image may represent millions of tiny new gravitational wave convergences occurring in the core space. I have also added a semicircle of light spots that represent locations formerly occupied by high energy density spots whose presence has been replaced in the direction of motion.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_43_25.jpeg

Wave-particles and objects move in the direction of the net highest density of the inflowing gravitational wave energy fronts from the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.




That is quantum gravity at work in the ISU model of the cosmology of the universe.

[guest39538]

48) Quantum Gravity in the ISU:
The wave-particle structure conveys the premise that a standing wave particle is composed of wave energy convergences within a standing wave pattern at the core of the wave-particle, that in turn has “presence” in the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.

We have very similar views on this part of the subject.  I agree in a core density of a particle , I consider particles to be like ''empty nut shells'' except they are not really empty, they are ''full'' of high energy?

The high energy repulsive and attractive properties allowing spherical form to maintain?


ADDED - Bogie, it just came to me, you will understand this diagram ....whoops missed the letter e out .


viscos.jpg (230.63 kB . 3168x1708 - viewed 5640 times)

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

48) Quantum Gravity in the ISU:
The wave-particle structure conveys the premise that a standing wave particle is composed of wave energy convergences within a standing wave pattern at the core of the wave-particle, that in turn has “presence” in the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.

We have very similar views on this part of the subject.  I agree in a core density of a particle , I consider particles to be like ''empty nut shells'' except they are not really empty, they are ''full'' of high energy?

The high energy repulsive and attractive properties allowing spherical form to maintain?


ADDED - Bogie, it just came to me, you will understand this diagram ....whoops missed the letter e out .


viscos.jpg (230.63 kB . 3168x1708 - viewed 5640 times)

Yes. That sequence of colors corresponds to the wave energy density scale we talked about earlier, in regard to showing the relative gravitational wave energy densities of the various parts on my diagrams.

[guest39538]

Yes. That sequence of colors corresponds to the wave energy density scale we talked about earlier, in regard to showing the relative gravitational wave energy densities of the various parts on my diagrams.

Parent arena's are BH's that diminish in density over a radius (r) ?

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Yes. That sequence of colors corresponds to the wave energy density scale we talked about earlier, in regard to showing the relative gravitational wave energy densities of the various parts on my diagrams.

Parent arena's are BH's that diminish in density over a radius (r) ?

A better way to say it is: Two or more parent big bang arenas converge somewhere in the multiple big bang arena landscape of the greater universe, and the convergence results in the formation of a big crunch. When the crunch grows to critical capacity, it is nature's maximum blackhole, which then collapse/bangs into nature's hottest, most rapidly expanding ball of plasma-like dense-state wave energy; a new expanding big bang arena. As the arena expands and cools, the radius (r) increases, and the internal density declines, reaching the threshold of density called the surface of last scattering, which marks the point that stable wave-particles form across it like frost on a window pane

[guest39538]

Yes. That sequence of colors corresponds to the wave energy density scale we talked about earlier, in regard to showing the relative gravitational wave energy densities of the various parts on my diagrams.

Parent arena's are BH's that diminish in density over a radius (r) ?

A better way to say it is: Two or more parent big bang arenas converge somewhere in the multiple big bang arena landscape of the greater universe, and the convergence results in the formation of a big crunch. When the crunch grows to critical capacity, it is nature's maximum blackhole, which then collapse/bangs into nature's hottest, most rapidly expanding ball of plasma-like dense-state wave energy; a new expanding big bang arena. As the arena expands and cools, the radius (r) increases, and the internal density declines, reaching the threshold of density called the surface of last scattering, which marks the point that stable wave-particles form across it like frost on a window pane

Sounding good mate, do you  intend on publishing the finished version?

I hope you do!

Myself personally , I am going to try even harder to stay off forums, I don't think my science is really welcome anywhere and it is not advancing my life any .  Whats the word? Feeling dejected I think suits. 
I wish you luck anyway and I will look in now and again , but at the moment I have more important issues in my life I need to take care of such as getting a job.  I need to break the habit of long periods of sitting here dreaming away about unreachable success.
Good luck anyway , I wish for you the best.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Parent arena's are BH's that diminish in density over a radius (r) ?

A better way to say it is: Two or more parent big bang arenas converge somewhere in the multiple big bang arena landscape of the greater universe, and the convergence results in the formation of a big crunch. When the crunch grows to critical capacity, it is nature's maximum blackhole, which then collapse/bangs into nature's hottest, most rapidly expanding ball of plasma-like dense-state wave energy; a new expanding big bang arena. As the arena expands and cools, the radius (r) increases, and the internal density declines, reaching the threshold of density called the surface of last scattering, which marks the point that stable wave-particles form across it like frost on a window pane

Sounding good mate, do you  intend on publishing the finished version?

I hope you do!

Myself personally , I am going to try even harder to stay off forums, I don't think my science is really welcome anywhere and it is not advancing my life any .  Whats the word? Feeling dejected I think suits. 
I wish you luck anyway and I will look in now and again , but at the moment I have more important issues in my life I need to take care of such as getting a job.  I need to break the habit of long periods of sitting here dreaming away about unreachable success.
Good luck anyway , I wish for you the best.

In the layman science enthusiast world, this thread is the "publishing and peer review", and I already have the Bogieprize:

Any way, if I could I would give you

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=70348.0;attach=26564

I think your theory is brilliant and I love the way you use the different arenas.  That is an honest opinion, I am not sucking up to you. 

I wish you the best of luck in getting your situation squared away to the point that you have clear sailing. You can PM me and let me know how you are progressing. I'll keep you in my thoughts with positive intentions for you to receive an acknowledgement from beyond the boundary of known science, and into the realm of the as yet unknown invariant laws of nature.

[guest39538]

I wish you the best of luck in getting your situation squared away to the point that you have clear sailing. You can PM me and let me know how you are progressing. I'll keep you in my thoughts with positive intentions for you to receive an acknowledgement from beyond the boundary of known science, and into the realm of the as yet unknown invariant laws of nature.

Still here at the moment , my internet not gone off yet, I might be able to squeeze another month online.  I am still trying to work out a few things in my life.   Anyway , no more ISU posts?

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Still here at the moment , my internet not gone off yet, I might be able to squeeze another month online.  I am still trying to work out a few things in my life.   Anyway , no more ISU posts?

It is a shame that I’ll be losing my single most responsive participant, but getting your things worked out is far more important.

As for the thought of “no more ISU posts”, not to worry. My posting history covers a number of different forums over the years, and has met with a changing dynamic of responses, but the ISU is part of my persona, on and off line.

For the early years, I listened and learned, and there were numerous comments across a wide range, from corrections, criticism, and even antagonism. As the ISU took shape, there were more and more underlying science connections, and the methodology I invoked, called reasonable and responsible speculation, began to make my model more difficult to attack and falsify. That is not saying it was “me doing science”, but just that the model was more and more internally consistent, and less and less inconsistent with generally accepted scientific observations and data. You rarely see science forum members embrace layman science enthusiast’s alternative ideas, and for good reason; they generally range from gibberish, to “not even wrong”, to untestable hypotheses. I see my current results as a growing success, in that there has been a noticeable change in the way my ideas are being dealt with. They are more often ignored, as opposed to being rejected and criticized, lol.

[guest39538]

Still here at the moment , my internet not gone off yet, I might be able to squeeze another month online.  I am still trying to work out a few things in my life.   Anyway , no more ISU posts?

It is a shame that I’ll be losing my single most responsive participant, but getting your things worked out is far more important.

As for the thought of “no more ISU posts”, not to worry. My posting history covers a number of different forums over the years, and has met with a changing dynamic of responses, but the ISU is part of my persona, on and off line.

For the early years, I listened and learned, and there were numerous comments across a wide range, from corrections, criticism, and even antagonism. As the ISU took shape, there were more and more underlying science connections, and the methodology I invoked, called reasonable and responsible speculation, began to make my model more difficult to attack and falsify. That is not saying it was “me doing science”, but just that the model was more and more internally consistent, and less and less inconsistent with generally accepted scientific observations and data. You rarely see science forum members embrace layman science enthusiast’s alternative ideas, and for good reason; they generally range from gibberish, to “not even wrong”, to untestable hypotheses. I see my current results as a growing success, in that there has been a noticeable change in the way my ideas are being dealt with. They are more often ignored, as opposed to being rejected and criticized, lol.

Well for me, I tried hard, perhaps too hard.   I think in life I am going to try for just allowing a bit of good old fashioned luck.  I am probably too calculated at times which creates resistance to variation. I perhaps need to focus on getting a job and getting myself somewhere to live , I allowed myself to become trapped by inertia. Although I created a paradox because I can't help but to care about friends and family .  I think my retirement from forums is overdue, but when I find good conversation or fun conversation that is more intellect than the average ''Joe''  ,  I can't help myself but to engage and it is hard to break ''free'' from the talk in cyberspace.   
Anyway , again good luck, I am trying to cut down on my '''addiction''.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #390
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_27_01_18_2_29_16.jpeg

Posts that represent the current version of the ISU model

... I see my current results as a growing success, in that there has been a noticeable change in the way my ideas are being dealt with. They are more often ignored, as opposed to being rejected and criticized, lol.

I am pleased that the general community is still largely ignoring my layman level science enthusiast’s view of cosmology as I make it available on the Internet, and I take that as an acknowledgement that there are no glaring internal inconsistencies that demand comment, and no clear inconsistencies with generally accepted scientific observations and data that have to be pointed out.

The last series of content posts started with the question I had about a statement made in another NakedScientists thread that gravitational waves were only emitted if there was relative acceleration involved between two reference frames. Looking back, reply #289 is a starting point for that series of posts, but the list goes back to [reply #274 because I like that <300 word description of the ISU model] include other important posts like #92.

Here is a list of links directly to the particular content posts that are a good representation of the latest update of the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) layman level model of the cosmology of the universe:

Reply #92
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg521293#msg521293
What gives a particle its charge?

Reply #274
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg537324#msg537324
My model, The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU), in ~300 words

Reply #289
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg540410#msg540410
On the question of if objects only radiate energy when they are accelerating

Reply #290
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg540682#msg540682
Every object in space is in relative motion to every other object

Reply #291
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg541496#msg541496
I grabbed a copy of the book “Mass” by author Jim Baggott

Reply #292
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg541825#msg541825
Beginning of a series of posts about the cause of gravity in The Infinite Spongy Universe Model

Reply #293
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg542143#msg542143
The energy that fills all space in our ~fourteen billion year old big bang arena consists of about 4% detectible matter, 21% dark matter, and 75% dark energy


Reply #296
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg542682#msg542682
Dark energy, dark matter, and visible/detectible matter all play a role in the mechanics of the ISU solution to quantum gravity

Reply #306
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg543026#msg543026
Arena Action is a process that plays out endlessly at the macro level of order across the landscape of the greater universe (¶1-12)

Reply #307
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg543923#msg543923
The mechanics of Quantum Gravity (¶13-18)

Reply #308
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg546083#msg546083
The cause of quantum gravity continued … (¶19-24)

Reply #317
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg546289#msg546289
In an arena like ours full of galactic structure that is observed to be moving away from us in all directions is demonstrating the conservation of the separation momentum that is imparted to all particles as they form

Reply #319
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg546484#msg546484
Note that the Gravitational Wave Energy Density Profile of Space is the ISU alternative to the curvature of space time in GR (¶25)

Reply #333
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg546756#msg546756
The cause of quantum gravity continued … (¶26-33)

Reply #344
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg547042#msg547042
The role of wave convergences and the ISU sphere/sphere equation (¶34-36)

Reply #371
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg547332#msg547332
This continues from reply #344 above (¶37-40)

Reply #372
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg547353#msg547353
The cause of quantum gravity in the ISU continued … (¶41-47)

Reply #374
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg547362#msg547362
Note: To clarify, what do I mean when you say quanta?


Reply #380
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg547541#msg547541
That is quantum gravity at work in the ISU model of the cosmology of the universe (¶48-51)

Reply #108
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg524158#msg524158
The ISU Philosophy: Eternal Intent

That is the list of posts that include the 51 numbered paragraphs, and some introductory and explanatory notes that I am consolidating here to simplify the process of updating and improving, in line with the ongoing effort to evolve the presence of the ISU model on the Internet.

It has been my pleasure to be doing so here at TheNakedScientists forum for the past year. The SMF software they utilize has various features not available on other forums (like life time edit capability and member image hosting).

NakedScientists is a well managed and moderated forum under the leadership of Dr Chris Smith (Chris Smith is a medical consultant specialising in clinical microbiology and virology at Cambridge University and its teaching hospital, Addenbrooke's. Chris is a member of the University of Cambridge's Institute of Continuing Education (ICE), which offers accessible, affordable, part-time courses covering a range of disciplines. He is also a Fellow Commoner at Queens' College, Cambridge).

[guest39538]

NakedScientists is a well managed and moderated forum under the leadership of Dr Chris Smith (Chris Smith is a medical consultant specialising in clinical microbiology and virology at Cambridge University and its teaching hospital, Addenbrooke's. Chris is a member of the University of Cambridge's Institute of Continuing Education (ICE), which offers accessible, affordable, part-time courses covering a range of disciplines. He is also a Fellow Commoner at Queens' College, Cambridge).

This forum is the best for sure  and Cambridge is the pride of  England, I wonder how much a math course would cost!  I ''love'' our Queen , I think having a Royal family gives us some pride .

Your model is an interesting model indeed, it is good to see people put in a real effort.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #392

This forum is the best for sure  and Cambridge is the pride of  England, I wonder how much a math course would cost!  I ''love'' our Queen , I think having a Royal family gives us some pride .


Your model is an interesting model indeed, it is good to see people put in a real effort.

I have taken some time to conduct a thread in the Cosmology sub-forum, about the concepts of “Nothingness” and “Universe” called “What is Nothingness” and there has been good participation from the membership. That thread and those concepts have a logical connection to the ISU model, and I want to include the content from there to here in my “If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bang events”.  This is reply #108 from the “What is Nothingness” thread:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=73511.msg548866#msg548866

Reply #108

It’s not a question of preferring one term to another. As noted above, I’ve explained elsewhere that I generally follow John Gribbin’s suggestion; which I summarised as:


Cosmos = everything that exists, or can exist.
Universe = our (in principle) observable portion of spacetime and its contents.
universe = any other universe that may, or may not, exist.


This is a quote from Gribben’s book, “Companion to the Cosmos”. 


    “Universe   With the capital “U”, the term used for everything that we can ever have knowledge of, the entire span of space and time accessible to our instruments, now and in the future.  This may seem like a fairly comprehensive definition, and in the past has traditionally been regarded as synonymous with the entirety of everything that exists.  But the development of ideas such as inflation suggests that there may be something else beyond the boundaries of the observable Universe - regions of space and time that are unobservable in principle, not just because light from them has not yet had time to reach us, or because our telescopes are not sensitive enough to detect their light.  This has led to some ambiguity in the use of the term “Universe”.  Some people restrict it to the observable Universe, while others argue that it should be used to refer to all of space and time.  In this book, we use “Universe” as the name for our own expanding bubble of spacetime, everything that is in principle visible to our telescopes, if we wait long enough for the light to arrive.  We suggest that the term “Cosmos” can be used to refer to the entirety of space and time, within which (if the inflationary scenario is correct) there may be an indefinitely large number of other expanding bubbles of spacetime, other universes with which we can never communicate.”


I hope this clarifies things.

It does. Gribbin really nails the situation in a way that makes a lot of sense and allows for making some distinctions for various scenarios. In the quote you provided from Gribben’s book, “Companion to the Cosmos”, the last sentence typifies its universal applicability when it refers to the cosmos as “the entirety of space and time, within which there may be an indefinitely large number of other expanding bubbles of spacetime, and other universes with which we can never communicate.”


We have to appreciate how all encompassing that makes the word Cosmos in regard to its applicability to any and all of the various possible models of cosmology.


It can apply to our observable universe and to every reputable model of cosmology that has to be consistent with what we can and do observe. That means it satisfies Big Bang Theory with Inflation Theory, which includes General Relativity, Spacetime, and the expanding universe, and accelerating expansion for that matter. It covers any model that invokes the Cosmological Principle, and it accommodates the cyclical models too. It accommodates Guth’s Inflation Theory with the false vacuum, and it accommodates Quantum Mechanics with all of its Interpretations, meaning it works for Quantum Physics, including Quantum Field Theory and the nucleating bubbles of the false vacuum, and Quantum Chromodynamics, and any QM associated model. It even satisfies the requirements of String Theory with its infinite multiple universes and dimensions. And not the least of which, it applies to any version of a Steady State Theory which go beyond those that invoke the cosmological principle and vacuum energy density to also invoke the Perfect Cosmological Principle that specifies that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, not only in space, but in space and time, as mentioned in the OP.


Still, I like the versatility of the definition offered in this thread which has the same range of applicability as Gribbin’s full scope definition, but that also has something that I am going for that might not have been necessary to Gribbin in the context of his book. In the context of this thread that starts out about “nothingness” I was interested in making “universe” the antithesis of “nothingness”, and so universe is everything that nothingness is not.


Nothingness: No space, no time, no energy, and no potential for any space, time or energy.
Universe: There is just one universe and it encompasses all there is, all matter, energy, everything, in one infinite and eternal presence, that had no beginning and will have no end, i.e., the universe has always existed, and has always been governed by the same set of invariant natural laws.

[guest39538]

Reply #392

This forum is the best for sure  and Cambridge is the pride of  England, I wonder how much a math course would cost!  I ''love'' our Queen , I think having a Royal family gives us some pride .


Your model is an interesting model indeed, it is good to see people put in a real effort.

I have taken some time to conduct a thread in the Cosmology sub-forum, about the concepts of “Nothingness” and “Universe” called “What is Nothingness” and there has been good participation from the membership. That thread and those concepts have a logical connection to the ISU model, and I want to include the content from there to here in my “If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bang events”.  This is reply #108 from the “What is Nothingness” thread:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=73511.msg548866#msg548866

Reply #108

It’s not a question of preferring one term to another. As noted above, I’ve explained elsewhere that I generally follow John Gribbin’s suggestion; which I summarised as:


Cosmos = everything that exists, or can exist.
Universe = our (in principle) observable portion of spacetime and its contents.
universe = any other universe that may, or may not, exist.


This is a quote from Gribben’s book, “Companion to the Cosmos”. 


    “Universe   With the capital “U”, the term used for everything that we can ever have knowledge of, the entire span of space and time accessible to our instruments, now and in the future.  This may seem like a fairly comprehensive definition, and in the past has traditionally been regarded as synonymous with the entirety of everything that exists.  But the development of ideas such as inflation suggests that there may be something else beyond the boundaries of the observable Universe - regions of space and time that are unobservable in principle, not just because light from them has not yet had time to reach us, or because our telescopes are not sensitive enough to detect their light.  This has led to some ambiguity in the use of the term “Universe”.  Some people restrict it to the observable Universe, while others argue that it should be used to refer to all of space and time.  In this book, we use “Universe” as the name for our own expanding bubble of spacetime, everything that is in principle visible to our telescopes, if we wait long enough for the light to arrive.  We suggest that the term “Cosmos” can be used to refer to the entirety of space and time, within which (if the inflationary scenario is correct) there may be an indefinitely large number of other expanding bubbles of spacetime, other universes with which we can never communicate.”


I hope this clarifies things.

It does. Gribbin really nails the situation in a way that makes a lot of sense and allows for making some distinctions for various scenarios. In the quote you provided from Gribben’s book, “Companion to the Cosmos”, the last sentence typifies its universal applicability when it refers to the cosmos as “the entirety of space and time, within which there may be an indefinitely large number of other expanding bubbles of spacetime, and other universes with which we can never communicate.”


We have to appreciate how all encompassing that makes the word Cosmos in regard to its applicability to any and all of the various possible models of cosmology.


It can apply to our observable universe and to every reputable model of cosmology that has to be consistent with what we can and do observe. That means it satisfies Big Bang Theory with Inflation Theory, which includes General Relativity, Spacetime, and the expanding universe, and accelerating expansion for that matter. It covers any model that invokes the Cosmological Principle, and it accommodates the cyclical models too. It accommodates Guth’s Inflation Theory with the false vacuum, and it accommodates Quantum Mechanics with all of its Interpretations, meaning it works for Quantum Physics, including Quantum Field Theory and the nucleating bubbles of the false vacuum, and Quantum Chromodynamics, and any QM associated model. It even satisfies the requirements of String Theory with its infinite multiple universes and dimensions. And not the least of which, it applies to any version of a Steady State Theory which go beyond those that invoke the cosmological principle and vacuum energy density to also invoke the Perfect Cosmological Principle that specifies that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, not only in space, but in space and time, as mentioned in the OP.


Still, I like the versatility of the definition offered in this thread which has the same range of applicability as Gribbin’s full scope definition, but that also has something that I am going for that might not have been necessary to Gribbin in the context of his book. In the context of this thread that starts out about “nothingness” I was interested in making “universe” the antithesis of “nothingness”, and so universe is everything that nothingness is not.


Nothingness: No space, no time, no energy, and no potential for any space, time or energy.
Universe: There is just one universe and it encompasses all there is, all matter, energy, everything, in one infinite and eternal presence, that had no beginning and will have no end, i.e., the universe has always existed, and has always been governed by the same set of invariant natural laws.

Our observable Universe is finite in the sense of information,  we are evolving and the better equipment we get, the more we can detect of information. This is not to say that there is still undiscovered things in our observable Universe, it just means that things could be hidden by other things and we are not able to detect these things.   But we would be fools if we didn't think other things existed that we can't observe.
Size is interesting, my boy who is 9 , 10 next week, is nearly as tall me already and probably has more mass, he is a bit overweight  but it is interesting how he is a lot younger but can have more mass.   
Sorry I was going off track then in conversation, unrelated but interesting.

[Bill S]

There is just one universe and it encompasses all there is, all matter, energy, everything, in one infinite and eternal presence, that had no beginning and will have no end, i.e., the universe has always existed, and has always been governed by the same set of invariant natural laws.

I’m fine with this.
 
There is a caveat. Before addressing that, though, I must clarify:  Is it right to interpret your definition as saying that the universe is infinite/eternal?

[Bill S]

Our observable Universe is finite in the sense of information,

Are you saying that the Universe should be considered finite until we have more evidence to the contrary; or that we are able to see only a finite amount of what, on current evidence, seems as though it might be infinite?

[jerrygg38]

   The conversation looks pretty good. The total universe in all dimensions always existed in one form or another. The problem is the statement that we have Invarient  Natural Laws. This is only partially true and eliminates an infinite number of natural laws that can occur in the total universe. It is true that many configurations of universes can occur that you would not recognize.
   Even in our universe for constant light speeds, all the other constants can and will vary. Thus in my analysis, the gravitational constant approaches zero at big bang and infinity as the universe stretches outward toward maximum radius. Today we live in a very linear portion of space time. You cannot readily write the laws of non-linear space time. If you include everything, then fine. The total universe of all possible light speeds and dimension always existed and always will exist.

[Bill S]

  The total universe in all dimensions always existed in one form or another………. Thus in my analysis, the gravitational constant approaches zero at big bang and infinity as the universe stretches outward toward maximum radius.

People keep talking about approaching infinity!  How can you do that?  Surely, however far you “travel”, infinity is still infinitely far away.

If the increase is approaching/heading towards infinity, in what sense can there be a "maximum radius"?

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

There is just one universe and it encompasses all there is, all matter, energy, everything, in one infinite and eternal presence, that had no beginning and will have no end, i.e., the universe has always existed, and has always been governed by the same set of invariant natural laws.

I’m fine with this.

There is a caveat. Before addressing that, though, I must clarify:  Is it right to interpret your definition as saying that the universe is infinite/eternal?

Yes, that is axiomatic in the ISU model. By that I mean that I invoke the three infinities of space, time and energy as axioms, and use those as givens to derive many other aspects of the layman level science enthusiasts model. In line with those three infinities, the model invokes The Perfect Cosmological Principle, https://everipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_Cosmological_Principle/

The perfect cosmological principle is an extension of the cosmological principle, and states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic in space and time. In this view the universe looks the same everywhere (on the large scale), the same as it always has and always will. The perfect cosmological principle underpins Steady State theory and emerging from chaotic inflation theory.[30][33][8]

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

   The conversation looks pretty good. The total universe in all dimensions always existed in one form or another. The problem is the statement that we have Invariant  Natural Laws. This is only partially true and eliminates an infinite number of natural laws that can occur in the total universe. It is true that many configurations of universes can occur that you would not recognize.

You have entered a thread dedicated to the Infinite Spongy Universe model of cosmology, my layman level science enthusiasts model. It discriminates against models that invoke string theory or multiple dimensions where each supposed universe can have a different set of natural laws. I go with the definition that there is just one universe, and one set of invariant natural laws. My reasoning is that each new big bang arena in the ISU model has the same preconditions.

There is a connection between parent arenas and the resulting new big bang arenas that emerge out of "parent arena" convergences. It is called the "sameness" doctrine of the ISU, and that is the premise that the natural laws that apply to the parent arenas will also apply to the new arenas that are composed of the galactic matter and energy of the parent arenas. The new arena will expand back out into the same vicinity of space where the overlap of the parent arenas took place; that convergence results in a big crunch that will collapse/bang to mark the beginning of the new expanding big bang arena in the landscape of the greater universe.

Even in our universe for constant light speeds, all the other constants can and will vary. Thus in my analysis, the gravitational constant approaches zero at big bang and infinity as the universe stretches outward toward maximum radius. Today we live in a very linear portion of space time. You cannot readily write the laws of non-linear space time. If you include everything, then fine. The total universe of all possible light speeds and dimension always existed and always will exist.

I do understand your comments and perspective, but let me refer you to Reply #390 https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg548324#msg548324 which is long recap of the ISU model, and which represents the latest updates. I understand that it is impractical to expect you to go all the way through that post and the links, so I give it with my apologies