It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by BogieSmiles
reply to post by BogieSmiles
Post #2
I want to jump start this thread with some of the questions I was asked in Swan001's thread by Arbitrageur and ImaFungi.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
"a landscape of big bang arenas that play out from the big bang to the formation of matter, galaxy formation, and separation until they intersect and overlap with other nearby arenas, crunches form in the overlap space, and crunches collapse/bang into dense dark wave energy . It will be fun for us all, lol.
I'm sorry to be so unskilled at using the tools here at ATS. I think I have now copied your post to my thread and I would like to direct you to post 3 in this thread where I responded. I know I have a lot to learn about technique, lol.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
You're welcome.
Originally posted by BogieSmiles
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I was thinking of there being two opposing forces associated with expansion; separation momentum and gravity. The gravity component declines with the increase in distance (inverse square rule) so if one of the two forces declines, I'm wondering why the other doesn't get relatively stronger, hense accelerating spearation (expansion).
Gravity is a force, so it can cause acceleration or deceleration. Momentum is not a force so that's the basic problem with that idea. It cannot cause acceleration.
I'm not sure how comfortable you are with graphs, but this graph illustrates the effect of gravity versus momentum:
map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Any line other than the red line illustrates some possible results from gravity competing with the expansion. To your point, you can see:
-the blue line shows gravity not slowing down the expansion
-the green line shows gravity slowing down the expansion a little
-the gold line shows gravity slowing down the expansion a lot (completely).
The green and gold lines show what you are talking about regarding gravity competing with the expansion, and this was our model of the universe before 1998, but notice that expansion never speeds up with any line except the red line.
In 1998 when we discovered the acceleration of the expansion, we added the red line, which includes acceleration from some unknown force, acting against gravity. We still don't know the source of that force, so we call it dark energy, but it might result from vacuum energy aka the cosmological constant. That can create a force opposite gravity which is what might be causing the observed acceleration in the expansion shown by the red line.edit on 28-8-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification
Hello ImaFungi! I'm hoping I can interest you in some discussion. We shared a few posts in Swan001's thread and in the Eyes Don't Have It thread while I worked up to my 20 posts, and I found both threads interesting. I threatened to start my own thread and this is the first attempt. I messed up on linking the "thought starters" listed in post #2, and with some help I think I have it now. Send me a simple, "yes, I got it", or participate all you want. Any ideas related to my initial posts? Any responses to my answers to your earlier question?
Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by BogieSmiles
alrighty sounds good..,,. you know you can go to any thread and comment a few lines that have to do with the topic to get your 20 posts to start your thread,..., or we can just chat back and forth 9 more times about the supposed expansion theory of the observable universe..
what do you think of the big bang theory?
what do you think of redshift?
what do you think of the possibility of space itself expanding, in effect causing an acceleration in expansion of the visible universe?
in your other arenas,, do you think the quantum realm always produces atoms and then ordered universes similar to the one we inhabit and are made of?
... but we all know that a simple layman is not going to be falsifying established theory.
Just seeing the motto "deny ignorance" reminded me to keep a positive attitude. But the possibility of me, (the simple layman in question, lol) of doing science instead of hypothesizing is remote, and though I pride myself in conceptualizing the not so new ideas of a foundational medium and wave energy density, the mainstream doesn't need to hold its breath for fear of me jotting out the equations that solve the Theory of Everything .
Originally posted by Byrd
Not entirely true, I should point out.
...
Thank you, I did read it and edited my last post to let you know. I still have that thread to enjoy yet too.
Originally posted by Phractal Phil
reply to post by BogieSmiles
I don't know why the link didn't work, but I fixed it. It works for me, now.
In my model, the universe consists of multiple big bang arenas interacting across what I call the potentially infinite landscape of the greater universe. So there is nothing finite that can hold a candle to how massive "infinite" is; it is boundless. I like to say the anything finite is almost nothing, almost never, almost nowhere relative to the infinite.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by BogieSmiles
What can we compare the total amount of energy in and of the universe, and the massive whole structure of the universe too? What I really want to ask with that,, Is what made the universe so relatively massive,, i think the state I live in is relatively massive,, a germ may think the bathroom it lives in is massive,, we know the galaxy we occupy is massive,, the universe,, pffftt,.,..., so im wondering what made the universe so massive? what would have happened for it to be millions of magnitudes smaller, or millions of magnitudes larger, and do those questions mean anything or make sense?
Exactly! If you apply infinite and eternal to your model, there is nowhere else and there never was a lesser universe to increase from.
I understand your usage of the terms infinite and eternal..,,. we exist within such a tiny smidgen of all time,,, the energy and matter of the universe and the potential universes that caused this may literally bang on forever,, if all that energy were to eventually dissipate.. where would it dissipate too? and what would stop it from seeking itself again through whatever means physical laws allow?
Please call them "arenas" because in my model there is only one universe composed of the interacting big bang arenas that make it up.
If you believe there are multiple universes next door to ours..
Our arena is the result of such an intersection and overlap. "Collide" is not the best operative word because though galaxies do collide in the process, in my model arenas rendezvous, lol. They rendezvous into a swirling accretion at the center of gravity of the overlap of the parent arenas.
do you state that they may collide and interact with ours?
The arenas can interact with their neighbors directly, and indirectly they will eventually interact with a broad swath of other arenas. The mechanism for such broad interaction has to do with the fact that a new arena always contains a certain "critical capacity" of galactic material and energy accumulated by gravity in the overlap space, and it bangs when it reaches that capacity, making all arenas essentially the same in energy. If you think about it, that means that if two arenas rendezvous then the new arena will come away out of the resulting big crunch/bang with half of the galactic content of the two, while if the rendezvous is three arenas, the new arena will form from a big crunch that all three "parents" contribute to. Since each new arena only contains the critical capacity, that leaves much of the content of the parent arenas to continue away from the overlap space via their own somewhat altered separation momentum. Those free galaxies no longer belong to a single mature expanding arena and become remnants traversing the "corridors" of space between active arenas. Eventually they will get caught up in subsequent overlap spaces and become part of new distant big crunch/bangs, and thus an original mature arena will have contributed to innumerable other arenas across a wide swath of the greater universe.
do all the potential universes outside of ours have the ability to interact with one another,, or if so can you conceive of a mechanism which would prevent them from interacting ( how can a universe be strictly contained?)?
I think you will acknowledge that I "confine" my model to the two levels of order that are just beyond our ability to observe, the quantum level and the arena landscape level, but to address a question that your statement brings up, i.e. Turtles all the way down (TATWD ) -----> cont.
what I attempted to ask with my [strike through]silly[/strike through] arena in arena all the way down question was... how many universes side by side could there be,,,, and what would be beyond the most beyond one,,, would all of those be contained in an arena,, and what would be beyond that contained arena,,, its completely contrived and unknowable because the past is potentially infinitely ancient,,,
Thank you for that explanation of the intent of your thread. Now knowing that you and CLPrime are collaborators explains the several suggestions that he write a book; did you help him write his book? I do discuss my model differently with professionals than I do with laymen because I don't need as many disclaimers with laymen, but if you talk the "lexicon of laymen" I should be fine.
Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by BogieSmiles
Nice discussion of dark matter. In my model, simply said, all matter in each big bang arena forms after each big bang event. It is part of a process I call "quantum action" that takes place as a result of big bangs; big bangs are the result of "arena action".
Dark matter does affect the universe's expansion, but in augmenting the counter-force of Inflation: gravity.
Dark matter is an unobserved substance which we think should exist because otherwise we would be in deep trouble.
We have observed everything we could from our galaxy, but yet the fact is, our observations only gave 10% of the total mass of our galaxy. We don't know where is the rest. We know our galaxy is much more massive than that: or else, we would all spin out of control. We wouldn't have the perfect, S-type (with a bar) galxy we have now.
So physicists invented the Dark matter concept. There is nothing dark about it, and one mustn't confuse dark matter with dark nebulaes, these are two very different things. It's just dubbed "dark" because so far we didn't see it.
Alot of candidates were chosen to explain missing mass: neutrinos (which are hard to detect because they go straight trought everything) were considered, but it was agreed that their small mass was not enough.
Quantum jitter is a prediction from uncertainty principle that rules the quantum scale: it actually gives space vacuum energy, also called Dark Energy, and energy is equivalent to mass (E=mc²). But energy IS NOT mass, and as some broke off from quantum to make new theories, this "quantum jitter" was also doubted to hold the missing mass. It could be used to explain the cosmological constant, though. It has been proven, though, that vacuum does holds energy.
Dark matter contributes to slowing down inflation by augmenting gravity in one's model. So far, not enough matter has been found, and alot thinks that space will just stretch or bubble-ize for eternity - well, until the entropy will be so high that it'll make it impossible to determine time's direction. The Thermal Death of the universe.
As I am sure you know, if we could find more matter, we would then turn to the Big Crunch death of the universe: everything will fall back to one point, a singularity.
No, not the quantum jitter of any existing quantum theory, but there is a "jitter" effect within synchronized standing wave patterns which I will end up discussing in some future post about the detailed mechanics of how quantum action establishes the presence of mass and gravity emerging from the dark matter sea.
Now, I am a bit confused, as I am alot of times when I wake up from a deep, regerating nap: is your model suggesting that quantum jitter, which is sometimes called dark energy, actually contribute to inflation? What is the core of your model. I am sorry if you already stated it in your OP, I read it all (I always resist the temptation of skimming, I think skimming a text is rather impolite), but I must say I am still a bit confused. Please forgive me for my confusion; I'll make myself a cofee now.
Thank you for saying that. I do have a lexicon that accompanies my model and I can describe the "precising" definition of the words I use if asked.
Don't worry about layman's terms, I keep to those too.
Good advice.
EDIT: Don't confuse dark energy with dark mattter.