Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Infinite Spongy Universe and my ATS disclaimer

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
The "book" was just a joke, I was teasing CLPrime by suggesting he write a book.



Originally posted by BogieSmiles
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.


Interresting. As mass is the core of these "raisins", do you think anti-inflation of space (gravity) would be caused by these kind of standing waves? It would imply inflation space is undergoing non-standing occilation.




posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by BogieSmiles
 



What do you think of the higgs field? 
My disclaimer applies but specific questions like that are welcome. My layman understanding falls far short of answering that question except that as I understand it, the LHC is attempting to provide scatter data that will disclose evidence of the decay of the Higgs boson. Finding evidence of the Higgs boson decay will be supporting evidence of the underlying theory and will give science confidence that the source of particles, the source of matter itself, ties in with the hot dense ball of energy/particle-soup that existed in the first instant after the big bang.

Though I don't invoke the theories that the LHC evidence will be interpreted to support because they are way beyond my ability to fully grasp and discuss, that evidence would also support my hypothesis. Not a Higgs field, but the energy density of particles, at the extemes of acceleration, when collided with other accelerated particles so the collision occurs at 90% of the speed of light, will produce an energy density environment like my model predicts occurred in the early picoseconds of our arena. Everything in our arena came from the hot dense-state wave energy that emerged from the collapse/bang of the big crunch from which our arena emerged. Therefore, the scatter data of particles observed in Atlas, a detector in the LHC setup, might be found to support a Higgs boson, and a Higgs field, just like it supports my model. The scatter data becomes observations and data in my model just like it becomes observations and data in the mainstream.



What are your theories views on light?
Light has different observable characteristics depending on the means and environment of the observations. Particle-wave duality, the photoelectric effect, the single and double slit experiments, the propagation of light through a vacuum, all are valuable observations that are part of the evidence that I include to support my hypotheses.

The hypothesis that I invoke about photons is that they are composed of multiple quanta in a particle state, but they can act like waves or particles when observed. Photons are emitted by atoms and molecules, oscillating dipoles. The electrons in the dipoles absorb and release photon energy in packets of quanta. When the energy level of a given environment declines and photon energy is being emitted in excess of what is absorbed, you have a net reduction of energy in the particular energy environment equal to the net photon energy emitted. Each electron that gives up a photon has a drop in energy state and the amount of energy drop equates to the number of quanta in the photons emitted.



Do you think there is any "purpose" towards the existence of universei?
From my model, I derive a philosophy that I believe. First, the center piece of that philosophy is that the universe has always existed and if there is any intent, that intent has likewise always existed. Second, there are invariant natural laws that govern the universe, and we have discovered some of them and some are as yet unknown. It is in the area of the unknown natural laws where my philosophy sees an opening for hope or faith in the possibility of eternal intent, but that is not part of the QWC model, it is derived from the model.


... 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).. 
No, if you read my last response to you, you picked up on how the arenas are all interconnected; parent arenas yield new arenas. It implies a life cycle of each arena that includes portions being incorporated in new arenas by the overlap with other mature arenas, and also by the broad disbursal of portions of the parent arenas that don't get included in the new big crunch, but instead drift on through the corridors of continuity to eventually be captured by the gravity of distant and subsequent big crunches. My hypothesis is that because all of that interconnectedness occurs all throughout the landscape of the greater universe, there are no other universes that could come out of nothing, or out of no where that would have different physics. They all are born out of the "stuff" of the preexisting arenas in accord with invariant natural laws that invoke the same invariant natural results.


but do things like the triangle and 1+1= 2 hold over absolutely?
Yes.
edit on 2-9-2012 by BogieSmiles because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by BogieSmiles
 


cool thanks for the response!! as always..,.,

so you believe the quanta is naturally what "near nothing" decided to compose its "lil more then nothing" out of? and there is no way anything can be composed of anything else, or ever has been.....

There are no other styles of universes with different sub atomic particles leading to different styles of atomic quantities and functions of matter and space?


"Everything in our arena came from the hot dense-state wave energy that emerged from the collapse/bang of the big crunch from which our arena emerged."

this makes me think of newtons cradle,, a pendulum, or that pharaoh ride on carnivals.,,. if the universe started out with the smallest inconsistency,, lets say,, a 1 instead of zeros,, or a crest ( wave) instead of flat line,, to get back to center,, its momentum over compensated and went to a little more then -1... a little troughier then center... and I guess somehow over time that inconsistency,, or original singularity,, swung infinite eternity into potential and actual.,,. until it was eons of time for each massive pendulum swing,,, this was just a spur of the moment idea and might not make sense,.,. but i cant comprehend the most original setting or arena,, what it was composed of,,, how far its energy reached ( if the arena was infinite,, its energy content was infinite large and massive and dense?) why it existed in exactly the way it did,.,,. where it existed... etc....



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
The "book" was just a joke, I was teasing CLPrime by suggesting he write a book.





Interresting. As mass is the core of these "raisins", do you think anti-inflation of space (gravity) would be caused by these kind of standing waves? It would imply inflation space is undergoing non-standing occilation.  
OK, I think he should write a book too
.

In my model, gravity is simply the directional imbalance between the inflowing and out flowing components of the standing wave pattern that establish the presence of particles. Let us say that in the earliest arena environment, as inflation forces a breakup of the dense-state wave energy into a sea of dark particles, each dark "clump" has wave energy flowing into it from all directions and out of it in all directions. The out flow becomes the inflow to other particles, and as such it comes from a specific direction, i.e. the directional inflowing wave component. The out flow is spherical in my model as described by the process of "quantum action". 

Quantum action invokes some mechanics that included the interruption of the inflowing wave energy component for a brief "containment" period. During that period the wave energy is finding its way through the internal standing wave pattern. Later I have some description of how there are hundreds of billions of tiny wave intersections (each a quantum in my model), within a single proton (three quarks if you like). The wave intersections are called high density spots in the standing wave pattern but they are really dynamic wave actions of converging wave crests that produce the high density spots and then troughs that naturally surround the convergences; the pattern is continually changing in a way that in one instant there is a high density spot and in the next instant there is a trough in the space where the spot was, all within the standing wave pattern of the particle space.

The huge disconnect with mainstream thinking is that I invoke a quantum level of order below the fundamental particles of the standard particle model, and so the fundamental particles that have no internal composition in the standard model are composed of those billions and billions of high density spots in the standing wave patterns that establish the presence of particles in my model.

So a raisin equates to a particle which has internal composition of billions of dynamic high density spots, and it is the sum of those spots at any given instant that establishes the presence of a particle.

So again, gravity is the directional imbalance between the inflowing wave energy component of the standing wave pattern and the spherical (equal in all directions) out flow from the standing wave pattern. Most people are justified to find this shockingly deluded, lol.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 
Pretty good for off the top of your head at the spur of the moment.

But your are laboring for a beginning and there wasn't one ... according to my model. Take another look at the PCP explanation I included in this post above. There has always been a potentially infinite arena landscape of active arenas playing out the process of arena action.

You cannot go back to the beginning because no matter how far you go back you just keep finding an infinite past where the faithful arena landscape is maintaining the presence of arenas, and hosting the conditions conducive to the generation and evolution of life.

Eternity in my model applies to the arena landscape that defeats entropy, and the perpetual existence of life.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by BogieSmiles
reply to post by ImaFungi
 
Pretty good for off the top of your head at the spur of the moment.

But your are laboring for a beginning and there wasn't one ... according to my model. Take another look at the PCP explanation I included in this post above. There has always been a potentially infinite arena landscape of active arenas playing out the process of arena action.

You cannot go back to the beginning because no matter how far you go back you just keep finding an infinite past where the faithful arena landscape is maintaining the presence of arenas, and hosting the conditions conducive to the generation and evolution of life.

Eternity in my model applies to the arena landscape that defeats entropy, and the perpetual existence of life.


okokok,...,,. so there is one,, largest arena in which all activity ever ever ever takes place,..,. and this arena is "space?" which is "infinite?" ,,meaning ,.,. if we were viewing a birds eye view of the arena in which every big bang has ever occurred in ( i know, i know) there is an infinite amount of space ,, 99999^9999999999999^99999 light years to the "east" of the most edgiest big bang? also there is an infinite expanse of space,, that same number time quadrillion septillion light years in every direction forever? and all of that infinite space is composed of the same substance as this birds eye view of dense big bang activity? and there can be big bangs happening infinite light years away from the close action here?



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

You are beginning to get the picture, but you are struggling with "infinite". Do what you just did, over and over, and sleep on it and start over doing it again, each time starting where you left off, and don't stop, ever, and you are still talking about almost nothing, almost nowhere, almost never relavtive to the infinite. But instead of struggling like that, accept the concept of infinity and apply it to my model, take two aspirins and you can have it by in the morning, lol.

edit on 2-9-2012 by BogieSmiles because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by BogieSmiles
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

You are beginning to get the picture, but you are struggling with "infinite". Do what you just did, over and over, and sleep on it and start over doing it again, each time starting where you left off, and don't stop, ever, and you are still talking about almost nothing, almost nowhere, almost never relavtive to the infinite. But instead of struggling like that, accept the concept of infinity and apply it to my model, take two aspirins and you can have it by in the morning, lol.

edit on 2-9-2012 by BogieSmiles because: (no reason given)



ok,, so how do we know our entire universe ( assuming we have not peered out of it/ beyond it... yet) isnt a microchip in gods computer? which would mean the universe,, its laws of physics/ nature,,, would be completely contrived ,, and there exists a more original and prior fundamental reality we can not access or know of?



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

reply to post by ImaFungi
 


ok,, so how do we know our entire universe ( assuming we have not peered out of it/ beyond it... yet) isnt a microchip in gods computer? which would mean the universe,, its laws of physics/ nature,,, would be completely contrived ,, and there exists a more original and prior fundamental reality we can not access or know of?
Its evidential. Take all of the physical evidence we have, redshift, CMB, Hubble view, and the data from sky surveys, and you have evidence that is consistent with my model.

On the other hand, take all of the evidence of microchips in gods computer and you have just gone to a level of order beyond the two levels that I invoke. I don't reject any possibility that cannot be falsified unless it is beyond any evidential observations and data, and is excluded by the scientific method and even my bottom up methodology. The God's Computer model invokes the supernatural, and both the scientific method and my bottom up method do no invoke the supernatural.

I have a saying though that applies to the supernatural: Contemplating the universe, considering infinity, and exploring the concept that anything that seems supernatural actually has natural causes that we don't yet understand.


And I have a verse:
If at first there was nothing, not even God, then nothing could ever be;
But just look around at the many fine things as far as the eye can see.
So say with certainty one of two things it seems to make sense to proclaim;
God or the universe has always been here, and maybe they're one and the same.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by BogieSmiles
 


ok ok,.,.,,.


"The God's Computer model invokes the supernatural, and both the scientific method and my bottom up method do no invoke the supernatural."

I was thinking more along the lines of

say at some point in the future humans can create brand new atoms and elements from an unlimited supply of captured or created subatomic particles,.,.. from this they eventually create in a vacuum,,, a small scale contained universe,, which seeks order from simple laws,,,. and can eventually form planets or some plane, for conscious entities to begin to arise on.,,.

these new conscious entities could not have arisen if it were not for exactly what the humans had done,..,, just as a specific flower could not have bloomed or passed on its offspring if a bee did not pollinate it,,, or you could not exist unless your parents created you,,.,.

those micro conscious entities bound to the universe we created for them,,,, would owe their existence to every event that came before them,.,,., and if they want to view us as intelligent creators,,, or just determined forces of nature,,, they can acknowledge that some "effort" went into creating them and their existence.,,.,..,

similarly if we create A.I. ,.,. do they worship the greater universe for their existence,,,, that in time and space they can experience consciousness and identity ,.., or do they more directly worship and thank us,,, for being a more direct,, and purposeful cause of their existence?

what I meant with my god micro chip is to not evoke supernaturalism .,,. I understand your verse,,,, but is it not possible that we are the conscious entities in my first analogy,,, and its gods all the way up
?



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   
When you invoke the "possible" without the constraints of a methodology, I call it a Friday night model. I work all week to make my model correspond to reality, and then on Friday night I make reality correspond to my model.

Each of us has a time and a place for unconstrained modeling, and Friday night is reserved for God's all the way up!
edit on 2-9-2012 by BogieSmiles because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-9-2012 by BogieSmiles because: Phrasing



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by BogieSmiles
When you invoke the "possible" without the constraints of a methodology, I call it a Friday night model. I work all week to make my model correspond to reality, and then on Friday night I make reality correspond to my model.

Each of us has a time and a place for I unconstrained modeling, and Friday night is reserved for God's all the way up!
edit on 2-9-2012 by BogieSmiles because: (no reason given)


yea, i guess your right,,, Its just that I hope there are gods...



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

yea, i guess your right,,, Its just that I hope there are gods...
Let me let you in on where you can invoke God using my model, if you have enough faith and hope. You acknowledge that there is a boundary between known science and the as yet unknown natural laws. Then you activate hope and faith that it is possible to receive acknowledgements from beyond that boundary; acknowledgements in the form of guidance when you need it, and in the form of positive responses to well intended hopes and dreams that let the future unfold as you would have it. That is the realm of Eternal Intent that is the philosophy that is derived from my model.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by BogieSmiles
 


this is my last reply on this little detour,, for I do not want to further drive your thread off topic,.,.,.
but I just think the universe would be a lot cooler with a god,.,., for semi greedy reasons and personal, not in this life to direct me or grant my wishes,,., but just to give more established and meaningful reason/reasons for anything existing ever.... the greedy part,,, it would be cool if there is a god with a mission,, in hope that maybe after I die, hes hiring,..,.. which also makes me think,, maybe we are already employed by god,, and on a mission..... Thanks for your replies and thought provoking, intellect stoking thread.... hopefully some more physics minded dudes will come along,,, you should message CLprime to discuss with you,, he knows a lot about a lot...



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by BogieSmiles
 


you should message CLprime to discuss with you,, he knows a lot about a lot...


I've been watching. Mainly because I've been busy the past few days and haven't had a chance to really jump in. As well as the fact that you guys are going on fine by yourselves...you've been having some significant discussion that I didn't want to interrupt.

I haven't even had the opportunity to fully read and comprehend the OP yet...I'll get on that shortly.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
BogieSmiles, could you go into a little more detail about what separation momentum is and how it would gain an upper-hand with the dispersion of gravity?

Also, I noticed this:


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 ...


Is gravity the only force in your hypothesis, or does it include electromagnetism and the strong nuclear force as well? Because it's well-established that these forces hold atoms together, not gravity. Unless you're saying it was gravity initially, and then gravity was later replaced by the other forces at these small scales.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

No; thank you! You have the stick-to-it-iveness to get to the bottom of things. Bringing out the concept of Eternal Intent is no small feat, given that I haven't established the model's main feature of being internally consistent and not inconsistent with observations and data. If I can't maintain that position under pressure, i.e. if I have to abandon the potentially infinite and eternal, then Eternal Intent cannot be derived from it.
edit on 2-9-2012 by BogieSmiles because: Spelling



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by BogieSmiles
 


What would be the wavelength of these outflowing/inflowing waves? Any way we can calculate them?



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by BogieSmiles
 


It is not that hard to learn Physics, honest. Its not simple and will require a lot of thought, but too many are fascinated by Physics but scared of the Maths. Although I was good at math, I never learnt anything after 16 years old.

To start:
Make sure you understand Algebra, www.khanacademy.com will help you brush up. Then join www.Udacity.com and take the PH100 intro to Physics course (short vids and questions with great forum). It is awesome to really understand the maths behind simple motion, I loved it.

Once you have had this taster, learn calculus and then you can take more in depth Physics courses.


I have gone through the videos in MIT OCW highlights of calculus and will now do Udacity's PH222 Maths Matters: Differential equations. I am doing lots of studying in Computer Science, Physics and Maths online for free. I will see if it takes me anywhere.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
BogieSmiles, could you go into a little more detail about what separation momentum is and how it would gain an upper-hand with the dispersion of gravity?

Elaborating on the separation momentum (sorry for the word salad): I think you are looking for more substance on what dark energy force is still operative when the gravitational influence between galaxies is diminished, i.e. the galaxies don't just speed up on their own now do they. There has to be a still unknown force at work, and in my model there is.

We are talking about a maturing arena whose separation momentum has not been interrupted yet by a pull of gravity from neighboring arenas so the explanation of accelerating separation has nothing to do with other arenas or outside gravity, it is still the force of energy density equalization, so let's put that idea to rest. 

In my model, since the galaxies as a whole are complex accumulations of particles, and the presence of each particle is maintained by the inflowing and out flowing components of the standing wave patterns, when taken as a whole, a galaxy also has inflowing and out flowing wave energy, if you will. Using the baking of the raisin bread analogy again, because that is the best way to visualize the effect of the process of "energy density equalization", the galaxies become the raisins, but instead of the bread loaf growth slowing as the baking uses up the yeast, there is always enough yeast to allow expansion until energy density equalization with the outside environment is complete, and your question is what is the "yeast" that makes the volume of space occupied by the galaxy filled ball continue to increase at an accelerating rate?

The entire galaxy filled arena still has dark energy because the energy density inside the expanding arena has not yet equalized with the low energy density of the space surrounding our big bang arena, but how does that fuel more rapid inflation?

Let me draw on the mainstream concept of the heat death of the universe. The discovery of the accelerating expansion has pretty much put us into the future heat death category where expansion continues to represent increasing entropy. The Big Rip theory or even simply the final heat death option of GR will play out until the galaxies become cold and dead as entropy increases, and this goes on forever; but not in my model. If there was just one big bang arena, complete entropy would be the fate in my model too, driven by the fact that the energy density within the arena will always be higher than the void outside. So there is always the force of dark energy, even after the gravity constraint is diminished by the inverse square law. 

Having thought about this a bit over the years, there are changes in the state of the arena that represent different "epochs", and those changes in state are characterized by changes the amount of the initial dense state wave energy that is available to drive equalization. The initial state is rapid inflation at the instant of the collapse/bang. That gives us an initial "jerk" of inflation at the instant of the collapse/bang. Particles and gravity are not factors in this epoch.

But closely following that "superluminal" inflation, particles begin to form and the initial "jerk" is countered by a "negative jerk" as matter forms. Now we have an arena inflating with the extremely low energy density contents of the surrounding space, and we have a meaningful portion of the initial dense state wave energy converted to particles and no longer fueling inflation. This is a phase change in the arena that establishes a new epoch of mild inflation based on the off setting relationship between the two major forces, dark energy and gravity. Gravity loses the battle eventually, but not until clumping has progressed to the formation of galaxies and galaxy groups all moving away from each other.

But in that second epoch, the amount of wave energy not included in particles of matter or dark matter has stabilized and there is a fixed relationship between the matter content and the remaining dense state dark energy content that drives the inflation of the arena. This epoch plays out as gravity diminishes due to the increasing distance, while the equalization between the remaining dense state wave energy and the surrounding low energy density surrounding space also continues to play out. My hypothesis is that at the beginning of this "fixed matter" epoch, i.e. after the one time "negative jerk" of matter formation, the rate of inflation relative to the off setting force of gravity as always produced accelerating separation because energy density equalization is stronger than gravity. We have finally noticed that fact.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join