Picking up on an off topic discussion about an oscillating universe, now the topic.

I must not understand the model your are referencing, because though there is a most dense state implied at the turning point between each oscillation, it wouldn't be called a state of equilibrium. If the next oscillation emerges from that dense state, there would have to be some mechanics in play to cause the next oscillation. The dense state would have to be a transition, so how can that be called equilibrium?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If!, if we are able to one day come up with an observable, validated QGT, then perhaps an Oscillating Universe may be evidenced.
The only other way I can see any validation for any big bounce or oscillating universe, were if we should discover distant galaxies near our observable universe horizon, to be blue shifted.
At this time our known laws of physics and GR being a classical theory, confines our observations somewhat, so that we know nothing of that first 10-43 seconds post BB.
Is there something at or below the mathematical derived Planck level that stops a point singularity being reached, and subsequently causes spacetime expansion once any speculatively inspired collapse reaches that point?
I was just about to compare this with the fact that most physicists do not believe that the point singularity relevant to a BH will ever be reached, but of course any BH, is "imbedded" in spacetime, while the BB singularity, is all of spacetime.

I'm not sure how Schmelzer's ether theory [presumably] predicts a big bounce or Oscillating universe, so perhaps he can explain that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There are lots of "ifs" to weigh and speculate about. I like the Fringe, and the AltTheory sub-forum for that reason. I don't have any prior knowledge about where Schmelzer is coming from, nor if he will even consider participating out here, for that matter.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Agreed quantum wave:
As I have alluded to a couple of times, your ability to accept that what you believe is still speculatory, is something others in this forum, should take note of.
I did post an article once re the subject of "delusions of grandeur" as being a sickness. It did draw the ire of those that fit that category.
On Schmelzer, he has posted in alternative sections before so I see no reason why he should not contribute here, and answer my query....
Do you agree with my summation in the previous post?

 

ps:
I have a busy day ahead, so won't be replying as often as I should or when I should...

 

Good, he has been helpful to me, though I haven't given him credit yet. Maybe in this thread.

Let me see ...

Quantum gravity, to me, is the only thing that makes sense in my layman level speculative model, and I will explain and defend that if I get some argument. As far as observing blue shifted galaxies in the far reaches of the known universe, that would strongly hint of some space and energy, well aged and developed, that might not be caused by our Big Bang; not causally connected, as they say. My model "predicts" that. I don't even entertain the concept of spacetime anymore, since my model has initial constraints that don't accommodate "something from nothing", or a beginning. "Always existed" brings with it constraints that BBT doesn't conform to.

That view point is understandable, but just not satisfactory to me at this late date in my conjuring

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. You are assuming the beginning, and I invoke preconditions that account for a Big Bang event very nicely, but they are part of a greater universe, infinite in time, space, and energy. There are multiple big bangs, and the 10-43 is addressed with my version of the mechanics of a collapse/bang, leading to a big bounce accompanying every single Big Bang across the Big Bang arena landscape of the greater universe.

A model that invokes spacetime isn't really down my alley. I'm interested in what individual members think is the case. Take a stand and tell me what and why. If it is spacetime that you insist on, I'd start by you quizzing you on your view of the "beginning", like I think I did before. I have done that in my model and am glad to hear comments pro or con, and would be glad to make comments on other models.

Now, let's wait for, and leave room for Schmelzer to join in if he is of a mind to, and not let this thread turn into another ISU thread.

 

I must be off quantum...back later

 

From the land down under, right?