The Infinite Spongy Universe and my ATS disclaimer

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   
The Infinite Spongy Universe and my ATS disclaimer

The Infinite Spongy Universe
An abstract from a layman's perspective
An Aether Based, Steady State, Big Bang Arena Landscape, Multiverse Model of the Universe

The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) is all inclusive, all there is, all matter, energy, everything in one potentially infinite and eternal, life and consciousness producing big bang multiverse landscape of dynamic wave energy where thresholds and limits of energy density govern natural processes that produce matter and gravity from wave energy in environments characterized by the opposing forces of expansion and contraction, a spongy energy-to-matter-to-energy-to-matter dynamic where big bang arenas are continually forming, expanding, overlapping and collapsing as they play out across the potentially infinite arena landscape of the greater universe.

The ISU is governed by invariant natural laws that apply everywhere, and Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC), the mechanics of my model, describes the mechanics of the ISU that assure that it is a perpetual host of hospitable environments conducive to the generation and evolution of life.

My Model and Spacetime

My model and spacetime aren't as far apart as you might think, and while I say I don't invoke spacetime, I do replace the effects attributed to the curvature of spacetime by matter, with my model's wave energy density of the foundational medium. And though it is hard sometimes to tell from my poor ability to explain it, my model uses energy density of the foundational medium to explain dark energy, dark matter, preconditions to the big bang, the mechanics of the big bang, the mechanics that establish the presence of particles and gravity in the new big bang arenas, and more. It is the simple invocation of a foundational medium at a quantum level below the fundamental level of the standard particle model that permits energy density to replace spacetime. It is the simple invocation of the foundational medium that also enables the mechanics of big bang preconditions, big crunches and big bangs at the macro level of order, i.e. the separation momentum of galaxies, the acceleration of the expansion, and the source of the CMB. My model allows some inconsistencies of the mainstream theories to be superseded by internally consistent mechanics that do not violate known observations and data.

ATS Disclaimer

Disclaimer: I know enough to know I'm a deluded skeptic. I respect ideas that I can't falsify and that suit my logic, but we all know that a simple layman is not going to be falsifying established theory. Still, I don't accept those theories automatically; I listen and study, and build my model from the bottom up. If a theory fits, its in. I have a good layman understanding of the limits of science, the limits of our ability to observe, and I pay attention to advances like sky surveys and accelerator/collider news. If you participate in my threads you will often find us discussing hypotheses, because that is where I focus. I call the sum of my hypotheses a model so that when I mention it I don't have to call it, The Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) of The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU); both the ISU and QWC are just the names I use. The model is supposedly internally consistent, amateur level scenarios on aspects of the mechanics of the ISU. I invoke mainstream science observations and data without specific reference, and I don't try to debunk science theory; theory is what theory is, and my model is hypothesis and it is what it is, and most of us will agree that never the twain shall meet.

I'm not trying to tell the science community anything. I am not suggesting my model has clues or hints that could in any way be helpful to science, or that no one has ever thought of before. I am not doing science, I am doing hypothesis, and I am doing it using a special methodology in place of the scientific method. If my bottom up methodology works as it is intended, it assures that everything I include in the model is internally consistent. If you prove me wrong on that then I grow and improve my ideas. If you do offer useful corrections, I will change my model and always remember where the improvement came from, as I have been doing for years now.

I don't expect anyone to be converted to my delusions, but if you can help by showing me where my model is not internally consistent or where it is inconsistent with science observations and data, you will be a contributor.

Most of my first twenty posts were in a thread by Swan001 where he was gracious by letting me intrude, here. Swan001's thread is the one I read that made me think that the science discussions and topics at ATS were civil and high level, and my next post will include some of the content from that thread that I hope will be discussion starters. The third post will be some elaboration on the brief discussion we had about dark energy.


edit on 31-8-2012 by BogieSmiles because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-8-2012 by BogieSmiles because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
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. www.abovetopsecret.com...

posted by Arbitrageur along with this graphic: map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

I admit I'm a little confused by your post and am not sure what point you're trying to make exactly, so I'll post a few things I think are related and see if it helps clarify ...

... the spatial positions of galaxies are changing, and this causes the redshift. In another view, the galaxies are at fixed coordinates, but the distance between fixed points increases with time, and this causes the redshift. General relativity explains how to transform from one view to the other, and the observable effects like the redshift are the same in both views ...

However, you run into some problems if you assume the galaxies are moving away from us THROUGH space and assume space isn't expanding (I'm not sure if that's what you're trying to suggest?):

... it's not possible. Remember an object in motion remains in motion ...

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.

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."

what would stop you from assuming the arena of big bangs is not contained in an arena, contained in an arena of arenas of big bangs?

reply to post by ImaFungi

You mean Turtles all the way down? To reject it "out of pocket" would be the same as rejecting a nicely functioning arena landscape as the highest level of order. Both would be supported by the same lack of evidence (unless Dark Flow counts and I don't know if if does)?

post by ImaFungi

Do you think regardless the largest arenas, would be composed of near infinitesimal constituents like this universe is composed of the quantum?

... and when did the first arena exist? or have they all always existed? or was there once one and now many multiples of arenas? was it quantum all the way down to before the beginning of time? is quantum the truest and most original nature of reality? did the quantum always take up an infinite area? is there an end? or is there only everything always?

... 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?

posted by BogieSmiles

That's my bet because the laws of physics are the same everywhere. Of course, as a layman, I do enjoy invoking new physics now and then. That is one advantage I have over professionals, lol.

posted by ImaFungi

ok so the fundamental property of "existence" is an aether/medium of space,, which is not only closely related to all energy/matter but is what births consolidated and macro expressions of energy/ matter itself? so energy/matter in any form it can ever take on is a form and function of the potentially infinite, potentially eternal aether?

can you elaborate on your (self proclaimed) delusions about wave energy density?

posted by BogieSmiles

... anything that can be accomplished by curved spacetime would have to be accomplished by wave energy density. Take Eddington's measurement ... of the positions of stars as measured during an eclipse ... I can't quantify it but I'm a layman so I can hypothesize that light would slow down when passing close to mass because the wave energy density surrounding mass is higher and diminishes with distance.

I vote for time "stretching" but I would phrase it that the measurement of time is stretching, i.e. if space doesn't curve or warp, then clocks have to slow down or speed up ... as the energy density of the environment hosting the clock changes. Space is not empty in my delusions, and all space contains wave energy. Particles are composed of it in standing wave patterns, objects like clocks are composed of it because they are composed of particles, and the wave energy density surrounding objects contains the inflowing and out flowing components of the standing wave patterns that establish the presence of particles. The closer a clock is to a gravitational source the slower it runs. Move away from a gravitational source and the clock speeds up. The change in the rate that the clock measures time is due to the change in the wave energy density of the environment, I hypothesize.



edit on 31-8-2012 by BogieSmiles because: Add link to Swan001's thread



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by BogieSmiles
 
Dark Energy

The issue with Arbitrageur boils down to "what is dark energy". He kindly posted a graphic showing the best scenarios we have and how the motion of the galaxies can be addressed under different combinations of dark energy and dark matter. The red line was the most recent addition and it was the line that represents accelerating expansion.

I see a skilled science professional in his posts. If not, he is a science enthusiast in the laymen community like me, but he knows mainstream science. Him being mainstream oriented and me being alternative hypothesis oriented leads to our disconnect on the cause of the "mysterious" dark energy.

I know the mainstream views, but he doesn't yet know my hypothesis, but from what I can tell I bet he wouldn't wave it off until after he heard it. Having him read it ... cool. So let me tell my view of dark energy.

My model is a steady state, big bang arena landscape model that defeats entropy and is in accord with the Perfect Cosmological Principle (PCP). The cosmological principle (CP) describes a homogeneous and isotropic universe on a large scale, and within the Hubble view of our universe, the large scale is made up of galaxies and galactic structure. The view changes as time passes because the galaxies are observed to be moving away from each other at an accelerating rate.

On the other hand, the PCP adds one characteristic to the CP. It adds that the universe on a large scale looks the same throughout time and eternity.

Clearly, if the mainstream invokes the CP, and I invoke the PCP, we are not talking about the same "large scale". In CP, large scale is galaxy related, and in my model, large scale is big bang arena related. I hypothesize that the universe is a steady state, big bang arena multiverse.

The difference between what we mean by "large scale" in the mainstream view and mine is what differentiates my model from any single Big Bang universe model.

It follows that the dark energy in the form of a cosmological constant, a.k.a. vacuum energy density in the mainstream model must be working entirely from within the causally connected space of the big bang, while my view allows the dark energy to be caused by a differential in energy density between high density of the big bang and low density of the space surrounding it in a greater universe. The hypothesis is that the mainstream universe occupies a tiny arena of space within a potentially infinite greater universe. If so, then the energy density of our arena is very high relative to the immediately surrounding space, and the principle of energy density equalization causes our arena to "inflate" as it intrudes into the surrounding space.

Even though the initial expansion after the big bang event is caused by energy density equalization between our arena and the surrounding space, there is another important detail that must be disclosed about my model before the story of the "mysterious" dark energy is complete. The matter that formed within our arena did so during early inflation and as the individual particles took shape, they had separation momentum imparted to them. Ignoring gravity at the first instant of formation, all of the new particles that formed in our arena were moving away from each other just like the raisins in the loaf of raisin bread as it bakes, and quite similar to how the galaxies are observed to be moving now.

But the story of dark energy still isn't complete until we define it as the force driving the accelerating rate of observed separation of the galaxies, and that includes the hypothesis that gravity and particles occurred simultaneously, i.e. particles "have" gravity (I will address the mechanics of gravity later). The fact that particles were formed having separation momentum and gravity is part of my hypothesis. Gravity is very strong in the close quarters of the early arena, and so particles clump together, atoms and molecules form and they clump together, and in my scenario hydrogen clouds form, and separate clouds of hydrogen gas collapse into stars, and finally the galaxies form having the conserved separation momentum of the particles from which they formed.

We know that gravity obeys the inverse square law, and so as the galaxies begin to establish their own space, the distance between them grows. The dark energy equation, if I had one, would quantify the balance between dark energy and gravity. It would gradually show separation momentum gaining the upper hand, and as a result, would quantify the observed accelerating rate of expansion over a range of values for energy density.

The mainstream "mystery" exists because the mainstream physics consensus does not have low energy density space surrounding the high energy density arena, and does not consider the physics where energy density equalization could drive the observed expansion.










edit on 31-8-2012 by BogieSmiles because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-8-2012 by BogieSmiles because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by BogieSmiles
 


To be clear: I just quickly skimmed over your posts here, without actually reading much of it. I just wanted to offer a little helpful tip.


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.

The bar at the top of this↑page:
Click on 'Tools' (towards the right side of the bar)

Then another bar will drop down.
Click 'Messages' (On the left side of that 2nd bar)

Then you will see 'Inbox, Replies, Outbox, & Saved'
Click 'Replies' and it will show you any/all replies that were made directly to you.

Then after clicking on the members name, it will give you the title of the thread, which is also a link directly to the specific reply.


 


If you look right now, it will show you your own replies, because in the 2nd and 3rd posts of this thread, you just replied to yourself. The specific members you have mentioned, may not even know that you want them to read these posts.

 


Using the 'Quote' Function should also notify them. For example: Instead of doing it this way:
"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."


...go to that actual post, and click 'Quote'. Then copy it, and it will appear like this:


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.





 

Honestly, I'd have to play around with it for a minute, to double-check and make sure it would still work out right when jumping from one thread to another, as you have done here. I'm pretty sure they would still get the notification, but at the moment, I'm not completely positive.

On the other hand, I am positive that they will not receive a notification with the way it is right now.


 

It would also be helpful to provide a link to the other thread.
Swan001's thread
(I just used another random thread in that↑ link)


 

Now with all that being said, it is possible that a Mod may close this thread anyways, because "We do not start new threads about other threads."


Regardless, that is still useful info....
(Well, it will be useful if I didn't make it seem too confusing.)


It's all actually quite simple to do, but not always simple to easily explain.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by BrokenCircles
 

Thank you BrokenCircles. I sure have a lot to learn. I think I understand and I seems I'm in a fix. I did link to Swan001's thread in the first post, and I did mention in his thread that when I got my 20 posts I would be starting a thread. But you make good points and so my fix is that as it stands it may be closed, the people I mention aren't properly notified, and I have screwed up on procedures.

I guess my plan would be to notify the people who have been participating with me earlier that I have started a thread and give them the link, and hope that the placement in the Science forum might attract some discussion to salvage what I have. Maybe it is now a waiting game to see what the Mods do? Anyway, thank you and I will be much better at it next time.

Edit: I just added a link to Swan001's thread at the beginning of post #2 also.

I think I will work on a new post that uses the messages and reply links like you explain and see if that salvages the deal.
edit on 31-8-2012 by BogieSmiles because: (no reason given)


Edit 2: I'm not quite getting how to include a quote from someone on another thread in my thread, but I'm working on it.
edit on 31-8-2012 by BogieSmiles because: (no reason given)


Edit 3: Oh wait! I think I got it. Thanks to BrokenCircles.
edit on 31-8-2012 by BogieSmiles because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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).
You're welcome.

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
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.
edit on 31-8-2012 by BogieSmiles because: Spelling



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   

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?
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?



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   

... but we all know that a simple layman is not going to be falsifying established theory.


Not entirely true, I should point out.

All the theories you're talking about are based on mathematics. Scientists would accept a very solid mathematical model.

Now... I'll confess right off that I can't do that kind of math, so you're not going to see any fresh universe models from this end (at least not right now.) My lil' eyeballs kinda cross when they trot out all the notations in Loop Quantum Gravity -- however, anyone who can work with Planck's constants and Lorentz invariants and so forth can indeed come up with a falsification and prove other things.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Not entirely true, I should point out.

...
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
.

Starting a new thread in a new forum is kind of daunting, and for someone like me who isn't a physicist or a mathematician to be haunted with the idea that science has lost it way is disconcerting on top of that. Invoking a foundational medium, wave energy density, preconditions to the big bang, an arena multiverse ... I can't shake the feeling that the limits of our ability to observe, combined with the scientific method, will hold us back from ever realizing the ToE. That is the only motivation I can find to explain why my mind seems intent on grinding out my misconceptions in glorious volumes of word salad.

And to top it off, no one can really be expected to take interest enough to sort out any meaningful content from the obvious disconnect I have with mainstream view. I mean, without being equally deluded, and not just deluded, but deluded in the same way as I am, there is not much of a chance of getting anyone to come close to understanding what I am going on about. So I dazzle myself in singular way, not alone in my discontent about not knowing, but alone in my specific delusions of knowing.
edit on 31-8-2012 by BogieSmiles because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-8-2012 by BogieSmiles because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by BogieSmiles
 


You and I are thinking very much alike, Bogie. My own Fractal Foam Model of Universes has much in common with what you are saying. I'm feeling lazy today, so I'll just refer you to two of my recent posts under Why Space is Expanding.

posted on 2012/8/20 @ 22:55

posted on 2012/8/21 @ 10:35
edit on 2012/8/31 by Phractal Phil because: (no reason given)
edit on 2012/8/31 by Phractal Phil because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Phractal Phil
 

Thank you for saying so, and for the link to your thread. I can use some good reading this weekend. Don't be a stranger and let's compare delusions
. That link to Fractal Foam Model of Universe returned an error though, so please check it for me.
edit on 31-8-2012 by BogieSmiles because: (no reason given)


Edit: BTW, I did find your link and read about the Fractal Foam. Interesting enough, and I don't really have a fine link like that to send you to so you can get a taste of my model. It is evloving and changes over periods like a few months, mostly in the form of more word salad about more detailed contemplations. I have a few threads in a few forums that cover the full model but they are unintelligible to those of average sanity, and so I will spare you a link.

I will discuss various aspects in individual posts like in post #3 where I address dark energy, but the key is that everything is internally consistent and not inconsistent with scientific observations. That claim is what keeps me sane, lol.
edit on 31-8-2012 by BogieSmiles because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by BogieSmiles
 


I don't know why the link didn't work, but I fixed it. It works for me, now.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   

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.
Thank you, I did read it and edited my last post to let you know. I still have that thread to enjoy yet too.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   
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?


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?


If you believe there are multiple universes next door to ours.. do you state that they may collide and interact with ours? 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?)? what I attempted to ask with my silly 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,,,



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   

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? 
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.



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? 
Exactly! If you apply infinite and eternal to your model, there is nowhere else and there never was a lesser universe to increase from.



If you believe there are multiple universes next door to ours.. 
Please call them "arenas" because in my model there is only one universe composed of the interacting big bang arenas that make it up.

But yes, there are arenas "next door to ours", and our arena had "parent" arenas that were "next door" to each other and intersected with each other to spawn our big bang arena out of their galactic remnants.



do you state that they may collide and interact with 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 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?)?
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.

There is no way in my model to contain an arena for very long, but I do call the big crunch stage of the arena's life cycle "containment" for the period of time it takes for the crunch to form and collapse/burst (bang).



 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,,,
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.
edit on 1-9-2012 by BogieSmiles because: Phrasing



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Link wordplay.blogs.nytimes.com...

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 I would like to address a question that your statement brings up, i.e. Turtles all the way down (TATWD
). TATWD is defeated by the energy density of the foundational medium in my model, and so I do dismiss it. The original TATWD is only vaguely defined as you can see from the link, but that doesn't keep wild enthusiasts from hypothesizing about the possibility. Since I invoke wave energy traversing the foundational medium, a particle becomes a standing wave pattern of wave energy with inflowing and out flowing wave components. The standing wave pattern is filled with high density wave energy but clearly not infinite wave energy. My point is that the wave energy to produce a whole operative universe in the space of a particle requires wave action at such an extreme that the standing wave of a particle in my model's quantum level would not be able to host all of that energy. Some would still say that waves can be infinitely small and object to my explanation, but if that is the case, my model is compatible with it but does not bother to invoke any level order below the quantum level.

You are so kind to ask such great questions, and I am interested in your views because I bet your approach to discussion has exposed you to a wide range of models.
edit on 1-9-2012 by BogieSmiles because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by BogieSmiles
 


I my thread, I was attempting to falsify the space stretch version of Expansion theory. This version seemed, to me, more likely than the bubble version. Although the bubble theory could provide a link with multiverses (a big dream of many, many physicists, for instance Susskind, the inventor of string theory), bubbles in our universe would no doubt show different propeties than those observed in our universe. The kind of propeties which could affect surrounding environnement of those bubbles.
So, as the Expansion theory seemed more stable on its "stretch" version, I went after this version. I had worked out that according to Einstein's relativity, the stretch version of Expansion theory would conflict with itself and self-cancel, thus in fact providing a major disagreement between its predictions and our observations. My friend CLPrime and I worked on it until we figured out the problem: space can in fact stretch without affecting time, and work individually. So the Expansion theory was safe after all. Well, in more exact words, I can't falsify it.

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.

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.

Don't worry about laymen's terms, I keep to those too.


EDIT: Don't confuse dark energy with dark matter.
edit on 1-9-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by BogieSmiles
 

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.


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. 
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". 

The first appearance of matter in an arena is in the form of dark matter. The increase in volume of the hot dense ball of wave energy emerging from the big crunch starts the "baking" of the raisin bread
. The first raisins that appear are individual patches of standing waves that emerge. 

Dark matter feels and transmits gravity and so clumping of dark matter and particle spin quickly lead to the formation of "fundamental" particles in the standard particle model. Fundamental particle formation from the dark matter sea seems to be very inefficient because the successful clumps that evolve to known types of particles require rather precise amounts of quanta in precise configurations of standing wave patterns, and much of the dark matter just ends up lurking around clumps that have successfully evolved to fundamental particles, or so I hypothesize
.

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.
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. 

Being a layman is so much easier than being a professional, lol. No official peer review, although these kinds of threads are a form of peer review.


Don't worry about layman's terms, I keep to those too. 
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.


EDIT: Don't confuse dark energy with dark mattter.
Good advice.
edit on 1-9-2012 by BogieSmiles because: Phrasing



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Updated Disclaimer
Already I have to update my disclaimer (just read the last paragraph unless you are a Geek like me)

Disclaimer: I know enough to know I'm a skeptic. I respect ideas that I can't falsify and that suit my logic, but we all know that a self taught layman is not in any position to be talking about falsifying established theory. Still, I don't accept those mainstream theories automatically; I listen and study, and build my model of the universe from the bottom up. If a theory fits, its in. All scientific observations and data are in by default.

I have a good layman understanding of the limits of our ability to observe in science with our best tools, and I pay attention to advances like sky surveys and accelerator/collider news. If you participate in my threads you will often find us discussing hypotheses, because that is where I focus. I call the sum of my hypotheses a model so that when I mention it I don't have to call it, The Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) of The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU); both the ISU and QWC are just the names I have come to use. The model is internally consistent as far as it goes, or so I say. It consists of amateur level scenarios on aspects of the mechanics of the ISU. I invoke all mainstream science observations and data, with or without specific reference as I go, and I don't try to debunk science theory; theory is what theory is, and my model is hypothesis, and it is what it is, and most of us will agree that never the twain shall meet.

I'm not trying to tell the science community anything. I am not suggesting my model has clues or hints that could in any way be helpful to science, or that no one has ever thought of before. I am not doing science, I am doing hypothesis, and I am doing it using a special methodology in place of the scientific method. My methodology is a bottom up process that starts with my favorite scientific observations and data. If the method works as it is intended, it assures that everything I include in the model is internally consistent because I go step by step, and if a previous step has to change to maintain consistency, I go back and revise everything from that point forwad. If you prove me wrong on that I will change my model from whatever point necessary and forward, and will always remember where the improvement came from, as I have been doing for years now.

As a result of the methodology, sometimes there are revisons of huge portions of the model, and if so then all old versions of the model are superceded and all threads and posts that predate the latest model update are similarly superceded.

I don't expect anyone to be converted to my delusions, but if you can help by showing me where my model is not internally consistent or where it is inconsistent with science observations and data, you will be a valued contributor.

I know I should have a nice neat link that I can send people to after they read my abstract or as they begin to participate in a current thread. I have conducted many threads but each time I do, the elaboration of various aspects increases, and so I always feel compelled to go back and update all the other aspects so they include the new level of detail too.

My model is built from the bottom up, starting with reference to the raw redshift data and the cosmic microwave background, and the first scenario is usually a description of preconditions to the big bang.

That scenario usually leads to my introduction of the new physics that the model invokes to achieve a big bang.

From there I describe features and characteristics in "module" fashion like my comparison between spacetime and the wave energy density of the foundational medium in the OP, or the "dark energy" module in post #3. There should be a place where I can keep a current abstract and accumulate those modules, and so while I conduct this thread I am going to try that. It may turn out that the maintenance of such a document will become more labor intensive than the benefit it gives, i.e. if no one accesses it, and so this idea may not work.

The idea is to use Google Docs. Using Google Docs and Google Drive for iPad I can share the entire content of the drive with people who have an email address and who have access to Google on the internet. I can update any document on the go from my iPad by using the desk top version of the mobile GoogleDocs, and I can share and collaborate with anyone I want. I'm going to spend a little time updating the latest summary Google Document and then see if anyone will want access it to avoid having to wade through this whole thread to get a very current summary. Will it work? Maybe so if I "deny ignorance".



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by BogieSmiles
 


What do you think of the higgs field?

What are your theories views on light?

Do you think there is any "purpose" towards the existence of universei?
or with infinite big bang arenas,, every combination will take place and so ours is just one of infinite forms,, there are no absolutes or nothing special ( unless you think because they are all so unique and rare they are all special)..
but do things like the triangle and 1+1= 2 hold over absolutely?





new topics
top topics
 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join