Origins: Let’s build a so called ATS Model of the Universe

Listen, I hope you don't want me to be the self appointed Chief ATS Cosmologist and just describe to you what the so called ATS model of the universe says. That would just be my view of the mechanics of the universe, and not a community consensus. I'm hoping to debate the development as we go, and to hear what you have to say, step by step. Come on; it could be fun and I know I will be enlightened through the process. It isn't scientific and we probably won't be doing any experiments, but wouldn't you like to say you contributed to the project?

And also, I think there is a conspiracy in the scientific community to make our children believe that mathematics and geometry can cause physical events like the curvature of spacetime that replaces gravity according to General Relativity Theory. And worse, there is the mainstream effort to reconcile General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. They want our children to believe in the Uncertainty Principle, the wave function, point particles with no internal composition, something from nothing, and geometrically curved spacetime all in one big unified package. And then they want the kids to grow up believing that there is nothing intuitive about physics, and we humans can only understand the universe by describing the invariant equations that don't just correspond to reality, but are the reality.

An ATS Model that includes physical causes for things like particles and gravity, the Big Bang, observed expansion, dark energy and dark matter, even if they are speculative and hypothetical, appeals to me over the abandonment of any reality beyond math and geometry. What do you say to that?

An important question I think is; is this universe all that exists. Is it more rational and logical and potentially true in your mind, that this system of energy,matter, space and time is all that exists, and an interplay between these qualities and quantities is all that has ever existed and will. Or is there a mutliversal universal system? Which would come no more closer to answer any question about what the heck this stuff is that exists. Or where did all these multiverses come from. But the multi verse concept would just push the idea back, that this universe is a causal response to prior causal responses, and that those others could possibly still exist outside of the universe in some way. I think any answer and truth is equally bizarre as any, the fact that not only one little something exists, but a massively huge complex something, and potentially many massive huge complex somethings exist is very peculiar, and there must be some good reasons as to why reality exists, the nature of reality is as it is, and a causal history that goes back and back and back and back and back. Every breath we take is on the cutting edge of times precipice (our universal time at least, if this universe is contained in another reality that created this universe the concepts of time may be vastly different). And it would be just as bizarre to me that this universe is the only thing that exists. Because if its not in infinite space (infinite space would be bizarre) then it is in finite space (bizarre), and its just weird the potentials that exist in this universe, where did it get its ideas from, for numbers and proportions, and aesthetics, and the potential existence of colors, and of the methods of chemistry and biology. The human body and existence is extremely marvelous, but once again bizarre, trillions of little atoms, making up their mini systems, which make up these larger systems like organs, and bones, and veins; is this 'style' of the biological creature, natures ideal choice of existence, If we were god or in charge of a nature or universal system, what knowledge would we be able to base what and why we would create what we would. These types of beings we are, made from the substances we are, dependent on the systems we are, could be completely novel and original in terms of some greater catalogue of events, so nature was what it was, and just went with the flow, it only had these materials that could follow these laws, and so it relatively built the best consciousness carrying machines it could and had them duke it out to see which ones would be worthy of remain and reproducing and in turn would advance their designs by struggling against competitors. But if we now think of all our ideas that have been created even in the last 50 years, from cartoons, and video games, and movies, and art, we do not really like this savage nature, and the messy gooey nature of our humanness, our consciousness likes existing, and wishes to exist forever, so it seems the progression of our technology will attempt to facilitate that desiree. If we wanted to create our ideal universe, what materials would we design to use? how big would it be and how much time would it last? what would be the point of its existence? How could we make it as perfect as possible? How could it ever be 'real'?

just a little rant. I think your OP is a good idea, and hopefully I contribute more on topic posts in the future.

reply to post by BogieSmiles

I'm hoping to debate the development as we go, and to hear what you have to say, step by step.

Okay, here's what I have to say (though please keep in mind that the opinions and views in this post in no way reflect the truth or what I really believe, seeing as I have absolutely NO idea how the universe came into existence).

So, a tiny air bubble is released at the bottom of the deepest part of the ocean. As that bubble rises, and as the outside pressure decreases, the bubble expands. This is what happened after the Little Bang that created our know universe. The material (whatever material that may be) outside of our bubble-verse is lighter than anything within the bubble. This causes our bubble-verse to expand, creating the vacuum inside that will one day tear everything to shreds. That's all I have for now.

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by BogieSmiles

 

I'm hoping to debate the development as we go, and to hear what you have to say, step by step.

Okay, here's what I have to say (though please keep in mind that the opinions and views in this post in no way reflect the truth or what I really believe, seeing as I have absolutely NO idea how the universe came into existence).

We probably agree that no one knows that, but since the human mind can certainly contemplate that topic, each individual has the ability to come to a conclusion. Do you agree with my simple conclusion that there are four basic explanations for the existence of the universe? Of the four, my choice, after personal contemplation, is that the universe has always existed. 

So, a tiny air bubble is released at the bottom of the deepest part of the ocean. As that bubble rises, and as the outside pressure decreases, the bubble expands. This is what happened after the Little Bang that created our know universe. The material (whatever material that may be) outside of our bubble-verse is lighter than anything within the bubble. This causes our bubble-verse to expand, creating the vacuum inside that will one day tear everything to shreds. That's all I have for now.

That may be all you have for now, but it does fall into the "other" category on the basis that it does not acknowledge any of the other three basic explanations.

If I understand correctly, your statement could represent repetitive occurrences of "little bangs" which makes it compatible with what I call a multiple big bang landscape across the greater universe, i.e. compatible with my view. Also, it doesn't invoke the Supernatural and so I wouldn't put it into the "creation or Creator" category. Or am I wrong? From that brief analysis, I would suggest that you could consider one of the other two choices, i.e. "always existed", or "something from nothing". Do you have a preference between the two?

Originally posted by BogieSmiles
Of the four, my choice, after personal contemplation, is that the universe has always existed. 

The same exact energy and quantity of energy of this universe we know now(do you believe that if we can see the whole universe right now, that amount of stuff is all that has ever existed, and there is nothing beyond it, just this blob of lots of stuff eternally interacting with itself)? If the universe has always existed, there would still be some sort of mathematical quantifiable graphically chartable description of time. Like, say there were a quadrillion universes before this one (if it has always existed how would we be able to determine how close we are to the past, how much time or universes has elapsed before this current moment of now), we would be on the current brink of time, and there could be an infinite number of "time" that this universe will continue to exist (or this energy will continue to configure). If this current universe/configuration of energy, is very far in the future, compared to how many things have already happened in a grander, ultimate history of history, then this universe can literally be anything. If intelligence has arisen and can do what it can do on this planet now, do we have any idea what could have gone on in the far past, in regards to intelligence? that to me, is the biggest argument for God, but because this is a science theory, we can leave God out of it. I dont think we will ever be able to know what energy is, why material exists, how this stable universe exists, what put it here, where it is, when it is,why its made of the things it is, and how did nature get so sophisticated. How all the materials were separated into tons of parts that could interact with one another stabley to create larger and more complex structures, what space is made out of.

reply to post by BogieSmiles

I would suggest that you could consider one of the other two choices, i.e. "always existed", or "something from nothing". Do you have a preference between the two?

You have already placed my premise into 'always existed', and rightfully so.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by BogieSmiles
Of the four, my choice, after personal contemplation, is that the universe has always existed. 

The same exact energy and quantity of energy of this universe we know now(do you believe that if we can see the whole universe right now, that amount of stuff is all that has ever existed, and there is nothing beyond it, just this blob of lots of stuff eternally interacting with itself)?

In a word, yes. Being more specific, let me give you a two part answer. Energy is conserved and so it cannot be created or destroyed; that is generally accepted and I agree.

Part two concerns the use of the word "beyond". My answer that there is no "beyond the universe" sounds old and lame to me because it is what I have been told for years. But the Big Bang Theory advocates who say that to me all the time mean something different from what I mean. They mean that the universe is finite and expanding, but it is not expanding into pre-existing empty space, it is creating space as it expands. They mean that at any given time there is nothingness beyond; not even empty space. My view is that the universe is infinite and so there is no beyond the universe; it fills the infinite space. It is a major distinction, wouldn't you agree?

If the universe has always existed, there would still be some sort of mathematical quantifiable graphically chartable description of time. Like, say there were a quadrillion universes before this one (if it has always existed how would we be able to determine how close we are to the past, how much time or universes has elapsed before this current moment of now), we would be on the current brink of time, and there could be an infinite number of "time" that this universe will continue to exist (or this energy will continue to configure). If this current universe/configuration of energy, is very far in the future, compared to how many things have already happened in a grander, ultimate history of history, then this universe can literally be anything.

l agree that the concept of time is quantifiable, but will take it further and say no matter where you are in the infinite universe, it is always now. The perception of the passing of time is made possible by the retention of perceptions, i.e. as time passes we retain a memory of past nows.

I acknowledge that the concept of "always existed" also is a concept of "no beginning". It is my personal view. I am comfortable with that concept, and I know it is not generally accepted or easy to accept.

If intelligence has arisen and can do what it can do on this planet now, do we have any idea what could have gone on in the far past, in regards to intelligence? that to me, is the biggest argument for God, but because this is a science theory, we can leave God out of it.

My view is that God and the universe are one and the same, and that anything that appears Supernatural has natural causes that we don't yet understand. The universe, in my view, is governed by invariant natural laws, most of which we don't yet understand, and we may never be able to uncover all of the causes and effects; but my view is that there is cause and effect in every instance.

I dont think we will ever be able to know what energy is, why material exists, how this stable universe exists, what put it here, where it is, when it is,why its made of the things it is, and how did nature get so sophisticated. How all the materials were separated into tons of parts that could interact with one another stabley to create larger and more complex structures, what space is made out of.

We are in basic agreement. But where we might differ is in our tolerance for speculation and hypothesis. I fill all the gaps in my "scientific understanding" of the universe with personal hypotheses, and I assure myself that the unity of known science and my hypotheses make for an internally consistent cosmology; a cosmology that is not inconsistent with known observations and data. But my cosmology is always evolving by sharing thoughts and ideas.

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by BogieSmiles

 

I would suggest that you could consider one of the other two choices, i.e. "always existed", or "something from nothing". Do you have a preference between the two?

You have already placed my premise into 'always existed', and rightfully so.

I thought so but I did leave it open for discussion and I wanted to be sure. Good. Please take a crack at addressing ImaFungi's posts and questions if you feel like it. I would like to see how you would respond.

Originally posted by BogieSmiles

In a word, yes. Being more specific, let me give you a two part answer.Energy is conserved and so it cannot be created or destroyed;that is generally accepted and I agree.

Yes it cannot be created or destroyed in this system,but that says nothing about whether or not that system as a whole could have been 'fashioned' into its state, and these rules of energy conservation then are just traits of this contained universal system. We agree that some type of reality (somethingness) must have always existed, my argument is that we do not know if this universe is that prime reality( but regardless, anything that ever comes into existence is related to everything else, in the fact that its existence was able to happen by all the existences of reality prior) but I ask you,is it theoretically possible for a reality to be created in a reality? But anyway, If this universe is not the first configuration of the energy involved in this universe, and it is thought that galaxies are constantly drifting apart from one another, and that stars can exist forever, eventually they will burn out, and atoms will eventually become stable, then in the far future, will the universe just be tons and tons of space, with little particles all very far from one another, If that then is all that will exist, what will happen next? and if this universe is not the first one, how did this one begin?

Part two concerns the use of the word "beyond".My answer that there is no "beyond the universe" sounds old and lame to me because it is what I have been told for years.But the Big Bang Theory advocates who say that to me all the time mean something different from what I mean.They mean that the universe is finite and expanding, but it is not expanding into pre-existing empty space, it is creating space as it expands. They mean that at any given time there is nothingness beyond not even empty space.My view is that the universe is infinite and so there is no beyond the universe; it fills the infinite space.It is a major distinction,wouldn't you agree?

hm,well these terms are confusing. Do you mean the quantity of energy is infinite? ( see I think these terms are bad..because say there are exactly a trillion galaxies, all with their exact number of stars...if you say the universe is infinite,do you mean that there are an infinite number of galaxies,Or do you mean it in a time sense, like we cant count how many galaxies there are now, and there will be later, and energy cannot be created or destroyed, so energy is infinite because the future of the universe may have no stoppage in terms of duration, you say the universe is infinite?

l agree that the concept of time is quantifiable,but will take it further and say no matter where you are in the infinite universe, it is always now.The perception of the passing of time is made possible by the retention of perceptions, i.e. as time passes we retain a memory of past nows.

ok how would this now moment be measurable, and what would you use to keep track of the amount of time contained in a now?Things exist for different durations,how do we measure these things?

I acknowledge that the concept of"always existed"also is a concept of "no beginning".It is my personal view. I am comfortable with that concept, and I know it is not generally accepted or easy to accept.

Oh I think it is the most likely,logical, and probable truth,but its equally as paradoxical,and unimaginable.imagine if a conscious being has always existed, think of how paradoxical that is, there was never a moment it was born,it can keep going back and back in memories, and back and back and back, but even itself, who has 'always' been conscious, is not aware of a time in which it never was .kinda like us actually, we cant remember the time when we werent alive. but we are aware of stuff existing before us.

My view is that God and the universe are one and the same,and that anything that appears Supernatural has natural causes that we don't yet understand.The universe, in my view, is governed by invariant natural laws, most of which we don't yet understand, and we may never be able to uncover all of the causes and effects; but my view is that there is cause and effect in every instance.

Nice,me too.But does that mean that an intelligence cannot cause a system such as a universe to exist? If we were to create a concious AI, would we have been an intelligence directly responsible for that beings existence?

Originally posted by BogieSmiles

We are in basic agreement. But where we might differ is in our tolerance for speculation and hypothesis. I fill all the gaps in my "scientific understanding" of the universe with personal hypotheses, and I assure myself that the unity of known science and my hypotheses make for an internally consistent cosmology; a cosmology that is not inconsistent with known observations and data. But my cosmology is always evolving by sharing thoughts and ideas.

Yes, that may be true. I admit I receive all my knowledge from science, and remain skeptical of it at the same time. I dont necessarily believe any of my speculation or hypothesi, but I do not restrain myself from thinking of he potential truth. One thing I do believe is that there are truths that will never be understood by quantitative and descriptive science alone. Models and maps can be made and technology used, and reality can still remain completely misunderstood or unknown. That is where speculation comes in. Logic, reason, rationale. When big bang theorists say that there was no space around the universe, they dont state that as a fact, they state it as an ignorance, they cant possibly know what was surrounding the big bang, or even how all the energy of the universe was contained in an infinitesimal dimensionless point, so they have no right thinking or speculating what could have been beyond the universe, or how the universe could have gotten into that starting point configuration. They did some math,they made some observations and its the best they could come up with thus far. Another reason they say there was no space beyond, is to make a distinction between what we know of as space, and an actual nothingness. Because space is not nothingness, the big bang is thought to not have been, an explosion of matter sent shooting off into an infinite nothingness, but its thought to be more like the space is part of the system. (this may be a bad analogy, but a big 'if', a seed/nut of a tree had all the nutrients and water it needed to grow... the beginning of the universe would be like the seed, all information and potential packed in a dense space, and then growth. It is interesting how all those examples of entropy reversal (life) require outer energy sources. Where as the universe is thought to have started out in a state of 0 entropy, containing all the potential information and energy of the universe we are familiar with, and then with no outside energy source, began to grow. And the fact that there are different types of material constituents (sub atomic particles and atoms), these contribute to one another, and aid in stability and growth, and balance. The neutron outside of an atom decays very quickly, yet many atoms and material we know of depend on the neutrons existence. quarks have never been detected freely yet the proton, neutron, and subsequently atoms existence depends on quarks existing. So all these different parts use one another to further themselves, and like life, this interaction dictated by quanta, of various quality by the laws of physics, allows things to happen, and the universe to not just fall apart. I mean like life, in the sense that your body depends on ( not all its parts) but some core parts to work in tandem, for all the other ones to work, and as a whole, for the whole system to remain existing. So just like certain atoms depend on the neutron to exist, the neutron depends on the parts of the atom to keep it in existence.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by BogieSmiles

We are in basic agreement. But where we might differ is in our tolerance for speculation and hypothesis. I fill all the gaps in my "scientific understanding" of the universe with personal hypotheses, and I assure myself that the unity of known science and my hypotheses make for an internally consistent cosmology; a cosmology that is not inconsistent with known observations and data. But my cosmology is always evolving by sharing thoughts and ideas.

Yes, that may be true. I admit I receive all my knowledge from science, and remain skeptical of it at the same time. I dont necessarily believe any of my speculation or hypothesi, but I do not restrain myself from thinking of he potential truth. One thing I do believe is that there are truths that will never be understood by quantitative and descriptive science alone. Models and maps can be made and technology used, and reality can still remain completely misunderstood or unknown. That is where speculation comes in. Logic, reason, rationale. When big bang theorists say that there was no space around the universe, they dont state that as a fact, they state it as an ignorance, they cant possibly know what was surrounding the big bang, or even how all the energy of the universe was contained in an infinitesimal dimensionless point, so they have no right thinking or speculating what could have been beyond the universe, or how the universe could have gotten into that starting point configuration. They did some math,they made some observations and its the best they could come up with thus far. Another reason they say there was no space beyond, is to make a distinction between what we know of as space, and an actual nothingness. Because space is not nothingness, the big bang is thought to not have been, an explosion of matter sent shooting off into an infinite nothingness, but its thought to be more like the space is part of the system. (this may be a bad analogy, but a big 'if', a seed/nut of a tree had all the nutrients and water it needed to grow... the beginning of the universe would be like the seed, all information and potential packed in a dense space, and then growth. It is interesting how all those examples of entropy reversal (life) require outer energy sources. Where as the universe is thought to have started out in a state of 0 entropy, containing all the potential information and energy of the universe we are familiar with, and then with no outside energy source, began to grow. And the fact that there are different types of material constituents (sub atomic particles and atoms), these contribute to one another, and aid in stability and growth, and balance. The neutron outside of an atom decays very quickly, yet many atoms and material we know of depend on the neutrons existence. quarks have never been detected freely yet the proton, neutron, and subsequently atoms existence depends on quarks existing. So all these different parts use one another to further themselves, and like life, this interaction dictated by quanta, of various quality by the laws of physics, allows things to happen, and the universe to not just fall apart. I mean like life, in the sense that your body depends on ( not all its parts) but some core parts to work in tandem, for all the other ones to work, and as a whole, for the whole system to remain existing. So just like certain atoms depend on the neutron to exist, the neutron depends on the parts of the atom to keep it in existence.

edit on 10-3-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

I find it remarkable how clearly you state your grasp on things. I could take points you have made and elaborate on them, and give my spin on things, but as far as the contents in that post go, I don't take any meaningful exception.

But as to the intent of the thread, it would be nice if you could stretch your perspective to personally fill in the gaps where science does not have the answers. Also, can you splice all of the possibilities in under one grand umbrella called the universe, and when you refer to "universe", be referring to all that is, so we don't have to contemplate how there can be something that isn't a part of the universe?

Just raises a bunch more questions for me.

If true the origin of the big bang must be the center of the universe. This center point would be the only location that the true speed of light could be determined? The speed of light in all other locations would need to be adjusted for Sagnac effects?

All clocks since the beginning of time would need to be adjusted for their accelerations from this point?

Big bang cycle might be an oscillation that repeats, but if there is no longer a central mass to pull it back together (at the same point) again?

If the universe starts to get pulled together back towards a center again clocks would slow down with the increasing gravity. Very close to the next big bang the gravitational effects would be so great that the expansion could never be reached in time?

I don't think there is an expansion, especially not one like the expanding balloon model. I think energy evolves by communicating to other energy. It does so by moving towards other energy and interacting with it. The universe only seems to expand because other galaxies are moving away. Well not all are...Andromeda for example, but yeah...energy evolves by learning new concepts and then communicates the new concepts to other energy - which is why energy moves at all.

More here on my theory of everything (read them all I think it is well worth it):
link link link link link link

I need some criticism on the above links before I go completely nuts by thinking I've stumbled upon something real. Thanks.

Originally posted by Cauliflower
Just raises a bunch more questions for me.

If true the origin of the big bang must be the center of the universe.

That is true if Big Bang Theory is a fact, but there is a lot of waffling between what I understand Big Bang Theory with Inflation to be with the various solutions to Einstein’s Field Equations, and what I understand of the more recent views of cosmology that professional physicists and cosmologists are researching, including quantum gravity in place of curved spacetime. Nevertheless, you are correct that General Relativity requires a starting point and a beginning of time as it relates to what is causally connect to our theorized Big Bang arena. For purposes of this thread topic, we are not accepting Big Bang Theory as the so called ATS Model, and specifically, instead of the universe having a start time at t=0, we are wrestling with the question of if there was a beginning. There are more contributors so far that are at least comfortable with the basic explanation for the existence of the universe being that there was no beginning, i.e. that the universe has always existed.

This center point would be the only location that the true speed of light could be determined? The speed of light in all other locations would need to be adjusted for Sagnac effects?

All clocks since the beginning of time would need to be adjusted for their accelerations from this point?

Yes, I think so too if I understand correctly. You are relating to us that assuming all clocks were perfect time keepers, the time that they show would be different relative to the acceleration that the particular clocks have experienced between the theorized t=0 and now.

Big bang cycle might be an oscillation that repeats, but if there is no longer a central mass to pull it back together (at the same point) again?

If the universe starts to get pulled together back towards a center again clocks would slow down with the increasing gravity. Very close to the next big bang the gravitational effects would be so great that the expansion could never be reached in time?

I won’t nit pick your analysis. Clocks being pulled into a big crunch would certainly measure time to pass more slowly relative to their particular acceleration toward the center of gravity, and if the clocks are in the expansion mode before the hypothetical reversal of direction which seems quite impossible in BBT, clocks would tend to measure time to be passing faster and faster as they distanced themselves from the supposed center of expansion.

But we are not advocating BBT when we say that the galaxies and galaxy groups are separating. I call it separation momentum that is conserved from the initial formation of particles in our particular big bang arena, and conserved right on up to the massive galactic gathering of particles, meaning that the galaxies as they form would have separation momentum imparted to them. The logic is that if initial particles in our arena formed from the energy density of the big bang and formed during the initial expansion that followed the big bang, then those particles would all be moving away from each other. Offsetting that particle separation momentum would the clumping effect of gravity which would be expected to arise in conjunction with the formation of the initial particles in the arena. As the galaxies get further apart, the inverse square relationship would allow for acceleration of the expansion momentum; we do in fact observe the separation to be accelerating.

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
I don't think there is an expansion, especially not one like the expanding balloon model.

It is always nice to hear someone talk like that. As you can tell if you read the thread, I refer to the expansion as separation momentum; the galaxies and galaxy groups move away from each other because separation momentum was imparted to the early particles in the arena as they formed. That momentum is conserved as gravity causes particles to clump, and the eventual result of the gravitational attraction is huge galaxies, all most all moving away from each other.

I think energy evolves by communicating to other energy. It does so by moving towards other energy and interacting with it.

That could be said about the type of wave energy that traverses the medium of space in my own so called model . I'm sure you have some distinguishing features that would differentiate your from mine, but we can compare notes. Mine features what I call a foundational medium; it is what the wave energy traverses as waves move in all directions. Of course then, wave energy is interacting with other wave energy at all times and places. In fact, I hypothesize that particles are composed of wave energy; synchronized standing waves with inflowing and out flowing wave energy components.

The universe only seems to expand because other galaxies are moving away. Well not all are...Andromeda for example, but yeah...energy evolves by learning new concepts and then communicates the new concepts to other energy - which is why energy moves at all.

You might want to call it separation of galaxies and galaxy groups, thus acknowledging that in some local groups like ours for example, there are cases where galaxies like Andromeda move toward each other.

More here on my theory of everything (read them all I think it is well worth it):
link link link link link link

I need some criticism on the above links before I go completely nuts by thinking I've stumbled upon something real. Thanks.

If your are not completely nuts yet maybe I should wait so we can be on equal footing.

reply to post by BogieSmiles


What the heck do you mean by:

separation momentum was imparted to the early particles in the arena as they formed. That momentum is conserved as gravity causes particles to clump, and the eventual result of the gravitational attraction is huge galaxies, all most all moving away from each other.

Are you saying gravity is determined by the rotational speed of a collective body, and not by a singular body's mass? Not only that, but the momentum of said galaxy is collectively stored within every particle? As-if to say, particles in other galaxies may be moving unlike our own? And if so, do you think other galaxies may have different laws of physics? Are subatomic particles' attributes not determined by the velocity/rotation of their spin?

Separation momentum; how does that work in your mind?

gravity of entire galaxy + gravity assist dynamics = separation momentum?

Does the fabric of space-time play any role or do you believe in that?


And yes, I know I'm already nuts. Trying to reverse engineer reality will do that to you. What I meant was a sort of crazy like: “everything I think I see, becomes a tootie roll to me”. That is how I am starting to see concepts. They're everywhere. :laughs hysterically:

And I read where you scoffed at people like me – people who think calculating reality might not be possible. But I do at least have a reason for thinking that it can't be calculated - because energy, as a whole, can change based on instructions or concepts. I think Einstein made light bend because he looked for it to do so. Sort of like a super double slit experiment (one in which the laws of reality and observer are codependent.) I think we are literally making it up as we gain new concepts. :laughs hysterically again:


Your wave energy and medium of space sounds a little similar to what I envision. I would say mine is like an invisible ocean - something very dense yet malleable in its form. (I described it as God's breath in another post.) The way I think it works is like this: the motion of each “water molecule”, of said ocean, is its way of communicating to nearby “water molecules”. Depending upon what is communicated, the nearby molecule will take on new concepts and pass them along if instructed to do so. If instructed, said nearby molecule will take on new forms. Why it behaves this way is because it wants to learn new concepts to better itself, as to evolve its instructions, or concepts, into what God wants. **Replace “water molecules with energy or light or God's word to have a more accurate interpretation of the “water molecules” that make up the metaphorical ocean.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


I’m picturing a big bang event from the stand point that at the instant of the bang, the contents of the emerging arena is energy, and to clarify, in my so-called model, all energy is wave energy traversing a foundational medium, or aether-like medium that fills all space. So I picture all of the wave energy of our emerging big bang arena at the moment of the bang as being equivalently enough wave energy to produce all of the galaxies that we now observe.

Particles form from that dense energy state. A rapid increase in the volume of that dense state energy is the effect of the big bang. The effect of the rapid expansion of the arena is a rapid decline in the density of the energy. As the density declines, the arena reaches a threshold of energy density at which particles can form. The threshold is reached as the arena is expanding, and so when the matter threshold is reached particles form in an expanding energy density environment. They are moving with the expansion of the wave energy from which they form, and as a result they are moving away from each other as they form.

The arena is getting larger throughout the matter formation period which is noteworthy for two reasons. One, the energy density of the big bang is being converted to particles which don’t expand and which reduce the amount of dense state energy that has fueled the expansion. But though particles that form don’t individually expand, they are moving apart because of forming during expansion of the dense state energy environment within which they formed. Two, particles form because of the continual interaction between waves in the expanding dense state environment. Waves are continually coming toward the particle’s space from all directions, and when the particle formation threshold is reached, the density of the arena causes those intersections to be at the proper frequency for repeated intersections to occur, producing standing wave patterns, i.e. the synchronized wave intersections where the continuous inflow of waves from all directions causes the presence of particles. Hence, particles are composed of wave energy that is synchronized at the moment of particle formation, into standing waves that are sustained but the inflowing wave energy from the surrounding environment.

Another tootsie roll please.

These fundamental standing wave patterns form across the entire arena; they are the most fundamental standing wave patterns, making the entire arena a sea of the most basic particles (not something you find in the Standard Particle Model of quantum physics). The particles are “basic” in that they are all the same simple standing waves that I would equate to dark matter because they exhibit no electromagnetic radiation. Thus at this point, the arena is a sea of dark matter particles all moving away from each other … except that gravity is a characteristic of standing wave patterns as well.

Gravity is an imbalance in the directional inflowing wave energy that sustains the presence of the standing wave pattern. Particles move in the direction of the highest net wave energy inflow because they are continually receiving higher density inflow from that direction as their presence is being continually refreshed.

You must be thinking that if there is inflow from all directions to sustain the presence of the standing wave particle and to cause it to move toward the highest density inflow, then there must be out flow as well. If you think that you are correct, according to my so-called model. The difference is that the inflow is curved plane waves arriving from a distance, and the out flow is spherical waves emitted from the standing wave patterns equally in all directions. The interesting side note to the spherical out flow is that as those out flowing spherical waves expand away from their point of origin, their spherical surface broadens and flattens and they become the curved plane waves that serve as the directional inflowing wave energy to surrounding standing wave patterns (particles).

So we have “dark matter” particles caused by the dense state energy reaching a threshold of wave energy density during the initial “inflation” of the big bang arena, and the dark matter particles tending to move away from each other due to the expansion momentum, and toward each other in close quarters because of the initialization of gravity that is characteristic of the sustained presence of standing wave particles.

The major overriding motion in the arena is that the dark matter particles, in spite of clumping, still exhibit the separation momentum that is conserved in those particles and particle clumps. The clumping continues as the clumps form simple atoms of hydrogen, hydrogen clumps into stars, stars eventually into galaxies, and those galaxies and galaxy clusters end up moving away from each other as a result of the conservation of momentum.

reply to post by BogieSmiles


I cannot fully comprehend what you have written. Your writing style is very unusual to me. What I took away from your post was: bang, energy spread, energy clumped together because other energy hit it from all sides, and then, somewhere, there is gravity and dark matter.

The only thing that I can think to add or ask is if you have considered using dark energy in your model; then, one could think of the big bang as a big expansion, and allow dark energy to be the medium that creates space.

eta:

In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe.[1] Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain observations since the 1990s that indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. In the standard model of cosmology, dark energy currently accounts for 73% of the total mass–energy of the universe.[2]

Dark Energy

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by BogieSmiles

 

I cannot fully comprehend what you have written. Your writing style is very unusual to me. What I took away from your post was: bang, energy spread, energy clumped together because other energy hit it from all sides, and then, somewhere, there is gravity and dark matter.

The only thing that I can think to add or ask is if you have considered using dark energy in your model; then, one could think of the big bang as a big expansion, and allow dark energy to be the medium that creates space.

eta:

In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe.[1] Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain observations since the 1990s that indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. In the standard model of cosmology, dark energy currently accounts for 73% of the total mass–energy of the universe.[2]

Dark Energy

edit on 3/12/2013 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)

That is a pretty good "take away". Now to help you find the dark energy, when I refer to the instant of the bang, I am depicting the emerging big bang arena as dense state energy that is expanding as it emerges from the big bang event. I sometimes call it dense dark energy. The arena at that point in time consists of nothing but dark energy and it is inflating which causes the density to decline. The decline in density is a decline in the force of expansion of the dark energy. So dark energy is there, but I didn't specify it as dark energy, partly because I am use to calling it dense state energy to differentiate my so-called model from Big Bang Theory, and partly because if someone doesn't see it there, they will ask about if if they care.

The so-called ATS model of the universe and the Three Infinities

I have offered one premise that has some acceptance, not a consensus for sure, and that is that the universe has always existed. Subsequent discussion has addressed the concepts of infinite space, infinite time, and infinite energy.

Let me make a brief case for those three conditions we can simply refer to as the Three Infinities.

Without them, the universe has a finite duration during which self-aware intelligent beings exist and appreciate that there is a universe, but without the infinities it will eventually fail to provide hospitable life environments and will no longer host life. Without life there is no acknowledgement that the universe even exits. It would exist without life, but would it have any meaning if it did?

That is a philosophical motivation for considering the Infinities, but it is also the stimulus to make the Three Infinities the leading feature of the so-called ATS model of the universe.

Do you have any objections if the ATS Model invokes the Three Infinities?