[puppypower]

And after the Big Bang, there are scenarios that explain the expanding observable universe, a universe that seems to have no center because the expansion seems to be accelerating in all directions. But then, an infinite and eternal universe would have no center, would it.
17025,117086,

The observation of the universe expanding relative to the galaxies, could be explained as a simple action and reaction. The galaxies are lowering gravitational potential, as stars form and atoms are created. This lowering of gravitational potential is exothermic; energy output. a reflected reaction to this action would mean the opposite should happen; absorbing energy and gravitational potential increasing; expansion, relative to all the big sources of action; galaxies.

I could never figure out why the traditions blindly assumes space-time can expand. lead, and be the source of action, that then lead matter as the reaction. It is far easier to have matter leading space-time through action and reaction in the lab; add to take away mass or increase density. Has anyone ever got space-time to expand first, in the lab, without using any form of matter? Has anyone ever seen dark energy in the lab, to see if this works in the lab? 

If you look at rotations, such as in spiral galaxies, a rotation will create a centrifugal force, the force vector of which is in the opposite the direction of the galactic center of gravity. Rotation of spiral galaxies add up to part of the gravitational action and reaction of spiral galaxies. The galaxies are lowering gravitation potential, with more turns of the spiral; more centrifugal force vector, means faster internal action over time.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I should probably just direct you back to my premise that the universe is infinite and eternal. A lot has happened over that infinite timeframe of the past; everything, in fact, that has ever happened has happened over that infinite timeframe, lol. But I want to make the point that an infinite past does nothing to impede the likelihood of an infinite future. The likelihood of an infinite future is 100%, just like the likelihood of an infinite past, and as time passes, the infinite past and the infinite future remain equally just as infinite.



We are always at the middle of time ... to be continued


120551,120622,120680,120739,120758,120809,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

The middle of time. That concept goes hand in hand with the concept of the "eternal now".


121150,121174,121234,121283,,














 

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Hypothesis: The "eternal now" is at the "middle of time".



121548,121581,121659,121707,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

No kidding, sometimes a little philosophy finds its way into people's thinking as they sort out their views on the cosmology of the universe. The greater universe must be infinite and eternal and that is well and good, but, in the short span and space of human lives, maybe there isn't enough individual time to thoroughly study and think through everything of interest that comes into our curious minds. Doing a lot of contemplating along with the study of science and nature would seem to provide some welcome medicine.


121712,121735,121758,121786,121812,121850,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Day 1  On board 2:00 PM
Underway 5:01 PM
eod2

121891,121931,122032,122185,

[Dave Lev]

I'm positing here that space is infinite, the universe has always existed, and Earth is in a region of space that represents a huge arena that is currently in the expansion phase of the aftermath of one of a potentially infinite number Big Bangs that have occurred across the universe over the infinity of time; our big bang being perhaps twenty billion years ago.

Please let me know if I understand you correctly:
1. The space is infinite:

space is infinite

2. The age of the universe is also infinite as it has always existed:
 

the universe has always existed

3. There were infinite no. of big bangs in the Universe over the infinite age of the universe:

potentially infinite number Big Bangs that have occurred across the universe over the infinity of time

4. The Earth is in a region of space that represents a huge arena that is currently in the expansion phase of the aftermath of one Big Bang
5. Our big bang being perhaps twenty billion years ago.

Few questions:
1. Do you assume that the space was always infinite - even before the first bang or each bang has to create its own  space?
2. Do you assume that each big bang create a single Universe and its space? In other words, do you support the idea of the Multiverse?
3. If there were infinite big bangs, while the space of each universe expand to all directions how could it be that there are no collisions between the Universes?
4. What is the chance that some bangs would be created in the same aria/universe/space?
5. As there were infinite bangs in infinite space, why can't we measure the reflection/ripple of any other bang around us?
6. As the space is infinite and the bangs are also infinite - Why the matter in the entire space can't be infinite?

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I'm positing here that space is infinite, the universe has always existed, and Earth is in a region of space that represents a huge arena that is currently in the expansion phase of the aftermath of one of a potentially infinite number Big Bangs that have occurred across the universe over the infinity of time; our big bang being perhaps twenty billion years ago.

Please let me know if I understand you correctly:
1. The space is infinite:

space is infinite

2. The age of the universe is also infinite as it has always existed:
 

the universe has always existed

3. There were infinite no. of big bangs in the Universe over the infinite age of the universe:

potentially infinite number Big Bangs that have occurred across the universe over the infinity of time

4. The Earth is in a region of space that represents a huge arena that is currently in the expansion phase of the aftermath of one Big Bang
5. Our big bang being perhaps twenty billion years ago.

Few questions:
1. Do you assume that the space was always infinite - even before the first bang or each bang has to create its own  space?

Yes, I assume space has always been infinite.

2. Do you assume that each big bang create a single Universe and its space? In other words, do you support the idea of the Multiverse?

No, I assume that throughout the infinite past there has always been just one universe that I refer to as the infinite universe.

3. If there were infinite big bangs, while the space of each universe expand to all directions how could it be that there are no collisions between the Universes?

In my view, a Big Bang does not create space or create a universe; all space has always existed and has always been infinite, so collisions between universes is not an issue since there is just one universe. However, big bangs occur because gravity causes matter to accumulate into big crunches, and crunches reach critical capacity and collapse/bang.

4. What is the chance that some bangs would be created in the same aria/universe/space?

My view is that there is just one universe, one contiguous infinite space that has always existed, so bangs do not create new universes, but multiple bangs can and probably do occur here and there throughout the one infinite universe, now and then. The multiple bangs occur as the result of Big Crunch sized accumulations of matter that grow until they reach some critical capacity, whereupon they collapse/bang into a new expanding Big Bang arena within the already existing universe; no new space, but a big bang event that happens in existing space because an accumulation of matter in that space reached critical capacity and "banged".

5. As there were infinite bangs in infinite space, why can't we measure the reflection/ripple of any other bang around us?

I'll add speculation upon speculation and say that reflective ripples from other big bangs would not be detected because we are within the space of our own Big Bang event and the matter within that space formed from the constituents of matter that have always occupied space and that go through recurring accumulations and bangs here and there across infinite space, a big bang/Big Crunch/ Big Bang cycle that only requires a finite amount of matter in a finite amount of space, within an infinite universe that contains an infinite amount of matter.

6. As the space is infinite and the bangs are also infinite - Why the matter in the entire space can't be infinite?

It can be.


122486,122547,

[Dave Lev]

Thanks

In my view, a Big Bang does not create space or create a universe; all space has always existed and has always been infinite, so collisions between universes is not an issue since there is just one universe.

So, In your view, all space has always existed and has always been infinite.
In other words - There is only one universe that its space goes to the infinity and its age is infinity.

I fully agree with you that the Universe is infinite in its space and its age.
That is excellent starting point for any theory.

However, you also agree that Infinity matter needs to fill that infinite space:

6. As the space is infinite and the bangs are also infinite - Why the matter in the entire space can't be infinite?
It can be.

Do you have an idea how the matter in the infinite universe had been created or it just comes for free with the universe?

Do you use the idea of bangs (or infinite big bangs) just to explain the expansion of galaxies?
So, is it correct that the bangs in your theory are used to move matter and not to create matter?

Don't you agree that somehow we need to explain how matter had been created?

Don't forget that matter means energy and energy means mass.
Therefore, any ejected energy from any star means less mass (if we ignore gravity forces and tidal heat).
We know how mass could be transformed into energy.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure that we really know how energy could be transformed into mass.

Do you agree that theoretically, if you take an infinite Universe full with infinite matter and set infinite bangs in it, then after infinite time you might get a universe without matter as it had been transformed to energy?

Any idea?

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Thanks

In my view, a Big Bang does not create space or create a universe; all space has always existed and has always been infinite, so collisions between universes is not an issue since there is just one universe.

So, In your view, all space has always existed and has always been infinite.
In other words - There is only one universe that its space goes to the infinity and its age is infinity.

I fully agree with you that the Universe is infinite in its space and its age.
That is excellent starting point for any theory.

However, you also agree that Infinity matter needs to fill that infinite space:

6. As the space is infinite and the bangs are also infinite - Why the matter in the entire space can't be infinite?
It can be.

Do you have an idea how the matter in the infinite universe had been created or it just comes for free with the universe?

I think that all there is in the universe is wave energy. Light is wave energy, and matter is composed of wave energy.

Matter is composed of gravitational wave energy, and objects of matter both absorb and emit gravitational wave energy.

Do you use the idea of bangs (or infinite big bangs) just to explain the expansion of galaxies?

I don't say expansion of galaxies, but I see it as the observed separation of galaxies. It is a little nit picky, but after a Big Bang I see it as a huge burst of gravitational wave energy because the big crunch had reached a maximum gravitational compression. Matter forms out of the gravitational wave energy as gravitational waves intersect and overlap in space that has had an infinite history of big bangs and crunches across all space.

So, is it correct that the bangs in your theory are used to move matter and not to create matter?

I still like the idea that all matter is composed of gravitational wave energy, and all space contains gravitational wave energy coming and going in all directions from an infinite history of Big Bang arena action.

Gravity compresses matter until a certain limit of compression is reached. The compression can get so extreme that the atomic bonds that orchestrate the good behavior of matter in objects is defeated. 

Don't you agree that somehow we need to explain how matter had been created?

No, since my view is that mater is composed of gravitational wave energy, all objects absorb and emit gravitational waves, and the relative motion of objects is due to imbalances of inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy. Objects move in the direction of the highest NET gravitational wave energy source in surrounding space.

Don't forget that matter means energy and energy means mass.
Therefore, any ejected energy from any star means less mass (if we ignore gravity forces and tidal heat).
We know how mass could be transformed into energy.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure that we really know how energy could be transformed into mass.

I'll have to finish my ranting on these topics later, since I'm on a cruise and stuff is happening all the time, lol.

Do you agree that theoretically, if you take an infinite Universe full with infinite matter and set infinite bangs in it, then after infinite time you might get a universe without matter as it had been transformed to energy?

No, but I'll give you my answer later

Any idea?

I will speculate about anything, lol.


122670,122841,

[Dave Lev]

Gravity compresses matter until a certain limit of compression is reached. The compression can get so extreme that the atomic bonds that orchestrate the good behavior of matter in objects is defeated. 

Why the Gravity compression of matter can't just end as a BH/SMBH or S.S...MBH?

[Dave Lev]

I still like the idea that all matter is composed of gravitational wave energy, and all space contains gravitational wave energy coming and going in all directions from an infinite history of Big Bang arena action.

I hope that you agree that proton is the basic element in any atom.
So, let's try to verify the structure of a proton:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#/media/File:Quark_structure_proton.svg
"The quark structure of the proton. There are two up quarks in it and one down quark. The strong force is mediated by gluons (wavey)."
Hence, the gluon is actually the force that holds those three quarks.

The total mass in three quarks is about 9 Mev/c^2.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg
However, the total mass of proton is 938  Mev/c^2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton
"Mass: 938.27208816(29) MeV/c2[2]"
Hence, the mass contribution of the three quarks in a proton is 9/938  =  0.0095 while the contribution of gluons is 929/938 = 0/9905.
Let's verify what is the meaning of gluons?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon
"A gluon (/ˈɡluːɒn/) is an elementary particle that acts as the exchange particle (or gauge boson) for the strong force between quarks. It is analogous to the exchange of photons in the electromagnetic force between two charged particles."
So Gluon is analogous to the exchange of photons in the electromagnetic force between two charged particles.
Therefore, proton is mainly electromagnetic (EM) energy.
Hence, do you agree that if you wish to create a matter - you must have electromagnetic source.
If so, how do you add EM energy to your theory?

[Kryptid]

So Gluon is analogous to the exchange of photons in the electromagnetic force between two charged particles.
Therefore, proton is mainly electromagnetic (EM) energy.

The strong force is analogous to the electromagnetic force, but it isn't literally the electromagnetic force. Be careful not to confuse the two.

[Dave Lev]

The strong force is analogous to the electromagnetic force, but it isn't literally the electromagnetic force. Be careful not to confuse the two.

Thanks
Yes, we call it the strong force.
However, what kind of energy is needed to generate that Gluon in a proton?
Don't you agree that EM energy is needed or gravitational wave energy is good enough?

[Kryptid]

Don't you agree that EM energy is needed or gravitational wave energy is good enough?

No. The strong nuclear force (which is neither electromagnetism nor gravity) is sufficient by itself.

[Dave Lev]

Don't you agree that EM energy is needed or gravitational wave energy is good enough?

No. The strong nuclear force (which is neither electromagnetism nor gravity) is sufficient by itself.

That strong nuclear force that is called "gluon" contributes more than 99% to the proton' mass.
Hence, 99% of any atom' mass comes from that "gluon" force.
In the same token - 99% of the total real mass in the entire Universe comes from the "strong nuclear force".

Based on the Big Bang Theory it is stated:
https://astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2018/12/the-first-element
"Protons and neutrons began forming shortly after, from about 10-6 to 1 second after the Big Bang."
Without real explanation how the strong nuclear force is created in the proton.

Bogie_smiles is recycling the matter in his infinite big bangs by using the idea of gravitational wave energy:

I still like the idea that all matter is composed of gravitational wave energy,

However, he doesn't explain how the gravitational wave energy is transformed into the strong nuclear force in the proton.

How can we discuss about any theory for our universe while we ignore the real creation process of the proton?

So, please - as the Gluon is neither electromagnetism nor gravity then how that strong nuclear force is created in a proton?

For Example - If we would have the three free quarks that are needed for proton, how can we Glue them by "gluon" in a lab (at any size, any energy, any location, any pressure, any temp) - Just a theoretical idea please?

[Bored chemist]

Since an entropy increase requires that energy be absorbed,

No, it doesn't.

this model of expansion would be very endothermic and would require a lot of up front energy to achieve.

No
The work done expanding an ideal gas into a vacuum is zero.

[Kryptid]

So, please - as the Gluon is neither electromagnetism nor gravity then how that strong nuclear force is created in a proton?

You could just as easily ask "how is the electromagnetic force created in a proton?" or "how is the gravitational force created in a proton?" The strong nuclear force is every bit as fundamental as electromagnetism and gravity. If an explanation for the creation of electromagnetism or gravity isn't necessary, then neither is an explanation for the creation of the strong nuclear force. Alternatively, if the creation of the strong nuclear force must be explained, then so must the creation of electromagnetism and gravity.

For Example - If we would have the three free quarks that are needed for proton, how can we Glue them by "gluon" in a lab (at any size, any energy, any location, any pressure, any temp)

Quarks come with the strong nuclear force automatically (just as they come with the electromagnetic and gravitational forces automatically). If a quark is formed, then the strong force must also be there.

[Dave Lev]

Thanks for the explanation.

You could just as easily ask "how is the electromagnetic force created in a proton?" or "how is the gravitational force created in a proton?" The strong nuclear force is every bit as fundamental as electromagnetism and gravity. If an explanation for the creation of electromagnetism or gravity isn't necessary, then neither is an explanation for the creation of the strong nuclear force. Alternatively, if the creation of the strong nuclear force must be explained, then so must the creation of electromagnetism and gravity.

Let's ignore the "how"?
My key question is - what kind of energy is needed for the proton creation?

Quarks come with the strong nuclear force automatically (just as they come with the electromagnetic and gravitational forces automatically). If a quark is formed, then the strong force must also be there.

Hence, Quarks come with the electromagnetic and gravitational forces automatically.
Actually, we all know that proton has electric charge:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_charge
"The elementary charge, usually denoted by e or sometimes qe is the electric charge carried by a single proton"
Electromagnetism in the main energy that carry electric charge.

In the following artical we can see the animation of the gluon-field in the proton:
http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/theory/staff/leinweber/VisualQCD/Nobel/
The animations to the right and above illustrate the typical four-dimensional structure of gluon-field configurations averaged over in describing the vacuum properties of QCD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation#/media/File:Quantum_Fluctuations.gif
That filed is also called "quantum fluctuation":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
"In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (also known as a vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary random change in the amount of energy in a point in space,[2] as prescribed by Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. They are minute random fluctuations in the values of the fields which represent elementary particles, such as electric and magnetic fields which represent the electromagnetic"

Therefore, can we consider the proton as electromagnetic and gravitational forces/energy in a Box/cell?
Or in other words - proton is a cell of  EM energy + gravitational force.
Therefore, do you confirm that without EM energy there is no way to create any proton?

If so, it is clear that Bogie_smiles idea for recycling the matter by only gravitational wave energy can't work.
There is also a need for EM energy for the creation of any proton in the entire Universe.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

...

If so, it is clear that Bogie_smiles idea for recycling the matter by only gravitational wave energy can't work.
There is also a need for EM energy for the creation of any proton in the entire Universe.

You may be right. However, my premise is that the universe has always existed; no creation or initial event that everything has to track back to. Celestial mechanics would be a natural occurrence. Atoms and molecules would occur naturally and would be recycled via big crunches and big bangs.  Maybe protons are eternal too?


123551,123600,123687,123786,