The Infinite Spongy Universe Cosmology

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Above Top Secret thread
2014 Hobby-model Update:
#1 4/11/2014
The Infinite Spongy Universe Cosmology, 2014, revised for changes since 12/31/2013 to the current descriptions of the model presented last year at ATS.

Introduction

What caused the initial expansion of the observable universe, what causes the presence of matter, and what are the mechanics of gravity. I have posed these question for years, and am on my way to developing my own answers. But I still pose those same questions rhetorically to the scientific community.

In a nut shell, we are not on the verge of a consensus on the answers at either the micro or macro levels of order. In regard to the macro realm, a consensus is not likely to happen soon on the topic of preconditions or causes of the Big Bang, given the fact that the current Big Bang Theory does not even start with the "Bang", though the latest developments in analyzing the CMBR have set the stage for some consensus building. But right now, Big Bang Theory still starts at 10^-43 seconds or so afterward.

Nor is the thinking of the current researchers in the field of Quantum Physics likely on the verge of giving us a consensus solution to the mechanics of quantum gravity, given that the current research environment favors the Copenhagen interpretation of QM that says there isn't any local reality at all, unless you can accept "spooky action at a distance", which I don't.

The ground rules in this thread are that I encourage discussion and comparisons between my ideas, hypotheses, and speculations, and the consensus models, or your personal models or ideas. However, this is alternative material that many members don't like and won't agree with. Please try to stay on topic and avoid telling me what the current consensus is or what other theories say.

I'm a supporter of the less popular view that there is a quantum local reality, i.e. "hidden variables", and that if we could know them, they would not only answer my three questions, but in addition, would explain everything necessary to connect the micro and macro realms into a unified theory of everything. While I wait for the scientific community to do that for us all, I will be contemplating the universe and continuing to work on my hobby-model where I attempt to answers those questions and unify the theories, to my satisfaction.

This thread is about my hobby-model, and as a layman, I am not "doing" science here, but am describing the way I think the universe might be that is internally consistent and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data.

To be continued ...




posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   

BogieSmiles
Above Top Secret thread
2014 Hobby-model Update:
#1 4/11/2014
The Infinite Spongy Universe Cosmology, 2014, revised for changes since 12/31/2013 to the current descriptions of the model presented last year at ATS.


Do you have a link to your original model of the spongy universe?
Would be interested to read it.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   

PhotonEffect

Do you have a link to your original model of the spongy universe?
Would be interested to read it.

I do have it laid out in a thread at my home forum, SciForums, in the Alternative Theories Sub-Forum in what they call the Fringe Forum. The Big Wait thread has the whole thing as it stood at the end of 2013, if you read through post #71, where I left off for the year. I am updating it there in a new thread, and here, simultaneously, if possible.

My preference would be that you comment to me about this thread as it goes, so we exchange thoughts. You might give me some good ideas, and then you might think mine are too alternative. There are some "comment worthy" statements in my OP, aren't there? This is not a scientific theory, with evidence and math, but just some layman brainstorming.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   

BogieSmiles
what causes the presence of matter

You mean, as in "predominance of matter over antimatter"? Hm, in that case you have my attention.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   

swanne
You mean, as in "predominance of matter over antimatter"? Hm, in that case you have my attention.
Hi Swanne. No, I don't mean that, sorry. I associate the matter/antimatter scenario with the very first instant in Big Bang Theory. This is not like that, and there was not matter/antimatter annihilation in the first pico seconds in my alternative hobby-model. I always thought that was necessary to explain a beginning out of "nothingness", and as I get into this update, you will see that my alternative has preexisting space, time and energy. Our Big Bang was just one of a common event across the landscape of the greater universe.

I have the next model content post nearly ready.
edit on 11-4-2014 by BogieSmiles because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-4-2014 by BogieSmiles because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   

BogieSmiles
This is not like that, and there was not matter/antimatter annihilation in the first pico seconds in my alternative hobby-model.


Hm, I can't wait to read more. I will be busy, though, so I can't guarantee I will be able to reply. But I'll definitively read it.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 04:31 PM
link   
#2. 4/11/2014
I always want to start with the premises and axioms. They are the things that I assume to be true, and that are necessary components of my ISU cosmology, if it is to be considered internally consistent. They are givens that cannot be shown to be true or false. They may be unacceptable to some people, so let me get them out up front.

These are the "axioms", and they represent the underlying concepts upon which my model relies, and with which my model will be completely consistent. They are what I call the three infinities; 1) The medium of space, 2) Wave energy traversing the medium of space, and 3) Time that simply passes, though time won't be measured to be passing at the same rate by identical clocks that are moving relative to each other.

To elaborate on those infinities, it seems logical to start with the medium of space. Speaking dimensionally, space is three dimensions and has no boundaries; it is referred to as boundless in my hobby-model. Space contains a medium that carries spherical energy waves; once a wave is propagated, it expands spherically until it is interrupted. When I refer to the three infinities, I am referring to space dimensionally with its infinite length, height, and depth, as well as the medium that fills it, and of the wave energy that is continually traversing it. None of those things had a beginning; they simply have always been that way. If that is an acceptable condition for the universe, then follow along.

The medium of space doesn't expand, contract, bend, fold, or break, except to the extent that it hosts wave action, and therefore has a certain responsiveness to the passing of spherical waves. I call that response a sponginess that allows the density of the medium to carry waves and accommodate multiple wave fronts passing through the same space. It is as if space would be restored back to its pre-wave natural state after a wave front has passed.

That statement is misleading when it comes to what my model maintains about the possibility of space being restored back to some pre-wave state because in a cosmology that invokes the three infinities, there never was a pre-wave state, but the concept is useful in describing the sponginess of the medium of space.

The concept of a pre-wave natural state also is useful because it sets up for the definition of a universal average wave energy density (energy density for short) that is important because the energy density in any given volume of space can vary, and it can be useful to compare the local energy density to the universal average wave energy density for talking purposes.

Equally important to the model is the sponginess itself. It takes a finite amount of time for a wave front to impose its incremental energy to the local density of the medium. This is the characteristic that governs the rate at which waves traverse the medium. If the local energy density is low, waves travel faster, and if the local energy density is high, waves travel slower. Therefore the factor of time is accompanied by a factor of distance. Thus there is a finite duration and a finite amount of space that it takes for the wave front to overcome the sponginess and fully impose its energy on the space it traverses. That duration and distance is governed by the energy density of the space involved, and it is a continuous process, as opposed to a discrete process.

If the medium of space is spongy, then the name I give our universe is appropriate, "The Infinite Spongy Universe", or ISU.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by BogieSmiles
 





I'm a supporter of the less popular view that there is a quantum local reality, i.e. "hidden variables", and that if we could know them, they would not only answer my three questions, but in addition, would explain everything necessary to connect the micro and macro realms into a unified theory of everything.


Yea, you, me and Albert Einstein. To hell with Bell's Theorem.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   

theantediluvian

Yea, you, me and Albert Einstein. To hell with Bell's Theorem.
Well said,
. It can get rather touchy when I start saying that, but there is some basis for saying that quantum mechanics is incomplete. You probably know that John Bell made a point of saying that he did not think he had eliminated the possibility that there are hidden variables, it is just that when those interpretations are crafted to comply with what can be measured and evaluated by the laws of QM, no hidden variables interpretations are valid. But then, if QM is in fact incomplete, instead of wrong as far as it goes, then the possibility that there is a level of action below that of the standard particle model exists, and is not yet discovered. That is what I describe in my hobby-model, along with the mechanics of wave action to establish the presence of particles and gravity in a wave energy density environment below the fundamental level of the standard model.

To be continued ...



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   

BogieSmiles

theantediluvian

Yea, you, me and Albert Einstein. To hell with Bell's Theorem.
Well said,
. It can get rather touchy when I start saying that, but there is some basis for saying that quantum mechanics is incomplete. You probably know that John Bell made a point of saying that he did not think he had eliminated the possibility that there are hidden variables, it is just that when those interpretations are crafted to comply with what can be measured and evaluated by the laws of QM, no hidden variables interpretations are valid. But then, if QM is in fact incomplete, instead of wrong as far as it goes, then the possibility that there is a level of action below that of the standard particle model exists, and is not yet discovered. That is what I describe in my hobby-model, along with the mechanics of wave action to establish the presence of particles and gravity in a wave energy density environment below the fundamental level of the standard model.

To be continued ...


I think the point that most physicists argue is that any theory that retains local realism will have to be very complex to account for experimental data, and would likely make less sense than what we have now (but not necessarily). For example, if you assume a completely deterministic universe, you could retain local realism by arguing that entangled particles choose their state according to how they will be observed, and since the future is predetermined that information could be available to them without the need to violate locality. But where does that put us in regards to causality? Reaction preceding action.

I think that if you're unhappy with the non-locality of quantum mechanics and try to explain it some other way, you'll always end up with an equally dissatisfying result. But I could be wrong.

How does your theory deal with this?



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Deran
I think the point that most physicists argue is that any theory that retains local realism will have to be very complex to account for experimental data, and would likely make less sense than what we have now (but not necessarily). For example, if you assume a completely deterministic universe, you could retain local realism by arguing that entangled particles choose their state according to how they will be observed, and since the future is predetermined that information could be available to them without the need to violate locality. But where does that put us in regards to causality? Reaction preceding action.

I think that if you're unhappy with the non-locality of quantum mechanics and try to explain it some other way, you'll always end up with an equally dissatisfying result. But I could be wrong.

How does your theory deal with this?
You are quite right. So far I have hinted that my answer to hidden variables is based on the medium of space, and wave energy that traverses the medium. Those are the the characteristics of a foundational level of order where the fundamental particles of the standard model that are said to have no internal composition, are composed of a complex pattern of standing waves in the foundational medium. The action at that level is continuous wave energy traversing the medium. That action is governed by a process I call quantum action, which I describe in gory detail as I lay out the model.

The most current detail, which this thread will update, is covered in the thread that I mentioned earlier, The Big Wait thread, through post 71, at SciForums, in the Alternative Theories sub-forum, but my intention is to present it all here in its latest updated fashion.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 10:31 PM
link   
#3. 4/11/2014
In the last content post, I acknowledged that some readers won't be able to abide with how I invoke the three infinities. I have personally decided to invoke them though, because without them, 1) the universe must have a beginning, 2) the volume of space must be finite, and 3) the energy that makes up matter, radiation, and what ever other energy is required for gravity must also be finite. But for me the clincher is, 4) that such a universe would be a closed system, and entropy can not be defeated in a closed system.

To that you may ask why entropy must be defeated?

Many people are undaunted by space, time, and energy being finite instead of infinite. They reason that if that is the way the universe is, that is the way it is, and we shouldn't impose our personal preferences by reasoning away the concept, even if it leads to the eventual completion of entropy that will spell the end of all life in the universe forever. Those people would consider it randomness and probability at work and they look at the finite duration of existence of life in the universe as the ultimate "finite" aspect of a closed universe.

However, I don't think I am just being pragmatic when I invoke the three infinities and an open universe. If you don't invoke them, then you get the "three finites" instead, and why go there when to get there you must also believe that the explanation for the existence of universe is the seemingly impossible, "something from nothing". Can invoking the "three infinities" be more objectionable than invoking "something from nothing"? What is nothingness, anyway, lol. However, I'll save the discussion of nothingness for another post.

I know from years of doing this hobby-modeling that there are a lot of people in, and out of the scientific community, that would rather say the universe came from nothing, than to say it is infinite and eternal. And do you know what some have said their reasoning is for preferring to assume "nothingness and then there was the universe"? They fear that "infinite and eternal" has a connotation of the Supernatural to it, and we all know that the scientific method excludes the Supernatural.

My response is that the three infinities do not require the Supernatural. Maybe they are compatible with the Supernatural if you want to invoke the philosophy that God and the universe are one and the same. You certainly do not have to adopt such a philosophy when you invoke the three infinities; you are simply rejecting the "something from nothing" explanation for the existence of the universe, and at the same time adopting a cosmology that would allow for the perpetual existence of intelligent life in various habitable systems that are naturally recurring in an open universe that defeats entropy.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 06:43 AM
link   
#4. 4/12/2014
In the OP, I said my model is very different form the consensus Big Bang Theory, and from the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. Just how different is best addressed by saying that I start with the three questions I posed in the OP about the cause and preconditions of the big bang, of the presence of matter, and the mechanism of gravity, and then using years of layman level interest in cosmology, piece together an internally consistent hobby-model that you will see presented here.

Ask yourself how much of current theory actually addresses those questions. Very little because there is little talk about the cause of the Big Bang, about the mechanics of how particles form, or about the mechanics of gravity. Almost none of Big Bang theory nor the Standard Particle Model actually addresses or answers my questions. Until the scientific community arrives at a broad and consistent consensus on those things, I'll have an interesting hobby. The hobby is describing a universe where everything is connected by invariant natural law that produces perpetual habitable host environments for the generation and evolution of free willed intelligent beings across the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 06:50 AM
link   
#5. 4/12/2014
I start modeling the universe based the observational evidence of the accelerating separation of the galaxies and galaxy groups; an observation which I believe back tracks to our observable arena's Big Bang event itself. But my version is without superluminal inflation, and without back tracking all the way to the singularity of an infinitely dense, zero volume point space. The volume of the energy ball as it emerged from the Big Bang would have been light years across in this model.

Big crunches are common, and they precede the big bangs, and each big bang results in an expanding arena that fills with galactic structure as they expand and mature. New big crunches form out of the merging galactic material from two or more mature arenas. They expand until that expansion is interrupted by converging and overlapping with each other, and the crunch forms at the center of gravity of the overlap. Each parent arena contributes a portion of its galactic matter and energy to the new crunch. The crunch bangs when it reaches "critical capacity", nature's limit of energy density that triggers the collapse/bang.

The cosmic micro wave background radiation that we observe at ~2.7K does not relate to a single big bang event, but is part of the greater universe, the result of an infinite history of arena action across the landscape of the greater universe. It contains the radiation imprint from the history of the parent arenas, and from a more distant history of arena action across the landscape of the greater universe.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:40 AM
link   
I just posted a new thread in the Science section which I hope to explain as part of this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The ISU hobby-model describes the gravitational wave mechanics that support my alternative explanation for the need for relativistic clock rate adjustments in GPS. It is those same mechanics that my hobby-model predicts as the hidden variables interpretation of QM. I'll try to get all of that in this thread as it unfolds.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   
#5. 4/12/2014
I start modeling the universe based the observational evidence of the accelerating separation of the galaxies and galaxy groups; an observation which I believe back tracks to our observable arena's Big Bang event itself. But my version is without superluminal inflation, and without back tracking all the way to the singularity of an infinitely dense, zero volume point space. The volume of the energy ball as it emerged from the Big Bang would have been light years across in this model.

Big crunches are common, and they precede the big bangs, and each big bang results in an expanding big bang arena wave that fills with galactic structure as they expand and mature. New big crunches form out of the merging galactic material from two or more mature arena waves. They expand spherically until that expansion is interrupted by converging and overlapping with each other, and the crunch forms at the center of gravity of the overlap. Each parent arena contributes a portion of its galactic matter and energy to the new crunch. The crunch bangs when it reaches "critical capacity", nature's limit of energy density that triggers the collapse/bang.

The cosmic micro wave background radiation that we observe at ~2.7K does not relate to a single big bang event, but is part of the greater universe, the result of an infinite history of arena action across the landscape of the greater universe. It contains the radiation imprint from the history of the parent arena waves, and from a more distant history of arena action across the landscape of the greater universe.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 09:13 AM
link   
#6. 4/12/2014
Don't look for spacetime in my hobby-model. In its place the model invokes an hypothesis of wave energy density based on the three infinities mentioned in the OP. They combine to give us the energy density alternative to spacetime. You will recall from the OP that time simply passes, but that clocks in relative motion to each other will not measure time passing at the same rate. The issue of time measurement is with how clocks are affected by the gravitational wave energy density of their local environment. Clock time variability associated with relative motion of objects is a perfect example of how the energy density hypothesis replaces the curvature of spacetime.

The mechanism of variable clock time is based on the fact that particles form and function within the individual big bang arena waves (or just arenas for short), and the gravitational energy density within the arenas fluctuates with any acceleration and with the proximity of massive objects. Any two clocks composed of particles, and in motion relative to each other, are thus affected by both relative acceleration, and relative proximity to the gravitational wave energy gradient in the medium of space.

Never-the-less, there is no reason why Einstein's Field Equations won't work fine in the ISU, and are the best that the scientific community has come up with in regard to predicting the relative motion of objects. The hobby-model does invoke the math of spacetime as a quantitative description of the effect of gravity, as described by the mechanics of the wave energy density hypothesis. My model borrows the math, but goes on to describe gravity's mechanism as well; described by what I call the process of quantum action.

Quantum action, along with big bang arena action (arena action for short), are the major processes of the model. They describe the mechanics and interplay of the two foundational forces that affect both the macro and micro realms, energy density equalization and gravity.
edit on 12-4-2014 by BogieSmiles because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by BogieSmiles
 


"3) the energy that makes up matter, radiation, and what ever other energy is required for gravity must also be finite."

I agree and disagree. Please hear me out and comprehend. The quantity of these things is finite. The aspect about them that is not finite, is 'Time'. 'Time' 'being infinite' means; The fundamental 'essence/energy/substance' that all things/stuff is made of, has ever been made of, and will always be made of, exists and transforms indefinitely. But, there must be a finite quantity of it at any given time. Because, that is what the somethingness/somethings of reality is, and that stuff/somethingness/somethings cannot come from nothing.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 11:53 AM
link   

ImaFungi
I agree and disagree. Please hear me out and comprehend. The quantity of these things is finite. The aspect about them that is not finite, is 'Time'. 'Time' 'being infinite' means; The fundamental 'essence/energy/substance' that all things/stuff is made of, has ever been made of, and will always be made of, exists and transforms indefinitely.
That is what I intended to suggest by invoking the "three infinities".

But, there must be a finite quantity of it at any given time.
That is a point that I disagree with when I talk about the infinities. If I understand you, you are saying that because matter forms within an environment that features infinite energy and infinite time, the amount of matter is finite. I am saying that even though matter forms from wave energy, because wave energy is infinite, and the circumstances that cause matter to form are part of the natural laws that are in place across the infinite space of the greater universe, there is always an infinite amount of matter throughout the infinite energy of the medium of space.

The infinities, combined with the finite aspects of a Big Bang, and the associated big bang arena wave, form the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe, a landscape that is unbounded, and thus contains a potentially infinite number of action big bang arenas at all times, in my model.


Because, that is what the somethingness/somethings of reality is, and that stuff/somethingness/somethings cannot come from nothing.
OK, we agree on that, and if you can't get energy, space, and time to come from "nothingness", then all of those things have always existed in my hobby-model.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by BogieSmiles
 


The term space-time is terrible. The idea of space actually being an positive energy field manifold that can be curved by mass is not that terrible of an idea. I think its the most immediately intuitive solution to the question "How/why does this massive object follow/swirl around that more massive object?". The answer, "What if 'space' is not the 'nothing' we intuitively with little thought or evidence are compelled to imagine it to be, but is actually a less dense, or lets say, different type of 'field', energetic medium then the other energetic mediums that go into forming atoms and such? Is it possible that when bodies exist in this energy field they displace the medium as a ball displaces the medium of water it is submerged into, and that causes the surrounding energy field (gravity field) to be of different values of density closer to the body then further away from it, and can a body moving through this energy field, then by proxy of disturbing and making a wake, and changing the local density and perhaps even velocity/momentum of other near by bodies that may enter its wake of influence? To me that is the most classically comfortable solution. There are problems when questioning the fundamental nature of things, as there are regardless.
edit on 12-4-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join