At Rest with our Hubble view

Take a periodic reading of the background over time and make a movie of it and you will see the history of the universe unfolding at the speed of light, as the anisotropy on the map flickers at each angle around the visible sphere of space. Some think the temperature has been and will be declining from billions of degrees down to the now ~2.7K, but I think not, at least not to the extent it would be declining if it was, in its entirety, causally connected to the big bang.

The background inflowing wave energy is coming from the greater universe, not our big bang, and contains clues to a history much more distant than our local big bang event. Those are clues about what you say is impossible to know, and yet the clues hidden in the CMB are of interest and at the forefront of scientific observational investigations.

Universally, the CMB is probably very consistent when viewed from any location across the potentially infinite arena landscape. Granted, within an expanding arena like ours there might be anomalies related to the immediate arena environment and the particular perturbations of the local big bang event, but on a grand scale the isotropy of the background is the big news; essentially isotropic from any given observation point inside our outside of an active arena, when adjusted for the local wave energy density of the arena. The light we call the CMB has been coming toward us through endless space for billions of years, long before our local big bang occurred within the universal preexisting perpetual shower of thermal radiation.

In it is a history of prior events, and it is a history we can see, but don't yet understand.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Our local big bang"? "light coming to us before big bang"? Ever get tired making up BS?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is evidence if you don't close your mind to the possibility that the anomalies we observe in the background radiation might not be a remnant "echo" of the big bang, but a record of a history of surrounding big bang arenas.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Evidence? Do you ever get tired of making up BS and trying to pass it as science?

 

Straw men.

 

Yes, you post straw men and BS, trying to pass it as science. You've manage to amass almost 4500 posts of horse manure.

 

My mind never closes. But it does pause when simple paths to combining such opposing evidences between the large observations and ponder, meets the small experiments and observations.

 

That is my response to you, as I make your posts disappear again.

 

You can't make the mirror I put to your face disappear. No matter how hard you try.

 

No, they're not, but I am not attempting to falsify mainstream theories, I am asking questions that science does not yet answer in any internally consistent model. GR and QM have their inconsistencies, and maybe even incompatibilities, and yet there are areas of mainstream science that use one or the other as the basis of their theories and math.

If you refuse to consider the possibilities, then you can mistakenly believe in your world view that actual possibilities are not possible; when they are.

 

Truth or Lie?

Lie! You are outright claiming that science is broken.

Lie! You are denying science, straight up.

Lie! Science is constantly searching for the next level of explanation that best fits all evidence into coherent theories.

Lie! Math is the language of laws, and the tendons that hold facts joined together.

Then stop doing that.

. . . or did you mean science does that? Lie! Science is the pursuit of best evidence.

 

quantum_wave

This is a big steaming pile of low grade male bovine poo. Word salad, woo woo(the sound of a train of thought makes when going off a bridge that just isn't there). Thanks for making plain just what a clown you really are.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Fine, have it your way.

 

It saddens me to see so many abusive comments.

 

Yes, we should not be abusive.

However, in the case of quantum_wave, he has been spewing what sounds a lot like nonsense, so Grumpy's comments aren't actually abusive.


I might add that quantum_wave has been quite egotistical as of late, telling everyone how fantastic his theory is despite being unable to demonstrate so.

 

Farsight

Descriptive of the content and behavior, yes. Abusive, not so much. It might be a little harsh, but he needed to hear it. His description is not based on what is seen in Cosmology, he doesn't even know what has been seen! It seems the extent he has examined the question is to notice that two spheres have a lenticular intersection, his entire edifice is built on this vague observation. What he describes CANNOT BE TRUE(it doesn't even make sense), the Universe exists as it is observed to exist, not as it exists in his gedanken. To insist otherwise in the face of the facts is behaving like a clown. When it comes to making up sciencey sounding word salad just to stroke your own ego, I'm an A__hole, sue me.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

One thing leads to another when you go off the grid. Simply hypothesizing about possible causes for the big bang is off the grid, as Grumpy points out; it is impossible to him that there could be any evidence of preconditions. What he stated as the answers to my questions are vague and without mechanics. In addition, he believes that the CMBR is causally connected to the Big Bang, and that it is impossible that there is evidence in the CMB to lead someone to think otherwise.

I am trying to look for what caused the big bang and I don't reject the idea that there is evidence in the CMBR of preconditions. I'm far from alone on that. Though the flaming is focused on me, it is the same as flaming those in the scientific community that not only don't think it is impossible, but are spending big dollars to find out. There is likely to be more and more support for the idea of preconditions evidenced in the CMB data as the scientific community searches for explanations of the anomalies, especially at wide angles. Time will tell.

Obviously, the detractors feel justified in flaming, just like I feel justified in hypothesizing. I take an idea that works for me and see where it goes without being constrained by models that don't work together; there are well known inconsistencies. That motivates them to abandon forum rules by being abusive toward me personally. My challenge to them is to show where my so called model is internally inconsistent, as many agree GR and QM are, and to show where anything in my so called model is inconsistent with scientific observations and data.

(26532)

 

You always define comments that critique made-up or nonsense physics (like the stuff you write) as abuse while you happily indirectly insult the actual work of physicists and directly insult the people who critique your work. Please gain a little self-knowledge.

 

Here is a brief list of ideas that are included in my so called model leading up to and including the cause of the big bang, so that you can address what is not internally consistent or what is inconsistent with scientific observations and data.

Ideas or premises, or hypotheses related to my explanation of the cause of a big bang:

There were preconditions to the big bang

Out of many alternatives, my favorite idea is that the big bang was preceded by a big crunch that collapsed/banged

"Collapsed/banged" conveys the idea that matter and energy can be compressed by gravity to a critical point; I call it critical capacity of a big crunch

Matter is composed of energy quanta, i.e. wave energy in quantum increments

Energy quanta are prevalent at the foundational level in the medium of space

The foundational level of order is characterized by wave energy traversing the medium of space in all directions, at every point in space, at all times

Energy quanta are produced by the intersection and overlap of parent quanta, and in the overlap space, a high density spot forms that itself then expands spherically as a quantum wave; it is called quantum action

The formation of a new quantum from parent quanta involves a time delay which means the speed of wave energy is limited, and not instantaneous

The time delay is caused by the compressibility of the medium of space which has wave action of all sizes, larger and smaller than quantum; but to be wave energy quanta incorporated within a particle they must be of a certain energy which is defined as a quantum of energy

The time delay occurs because many tinier waves exist within the medium of space that are not a quantum of energy. That tiny wave action contributes to the sponginess of the medium below the quantum level, hence a time delay when two spherical quantum waves intersect and form a high density spot in the lens shaped space; the spot itself has internal wave content consisting of tiny non-quantum wave action

That tinier wave action is always going on in the medium of space but if there are no quantum sized waves, particles do not form in the medium or are not stable

The failure of the big crunch occurs when the gravitational compression of the particles in the crunch causes them to fail to be able to maintain sufficient individual particle space to allow quantum action to continue to occur

That level of compression occurs at "critical capacity" of the big crunch, and the particles give up their individual space as the crunch collapses

That is the big bang

(26687)

 

Go Vixra!