ISU (Infinite Spongy Universe Model of Cosmology) Update 2016

[QUOTE="quantum_wave]...
Let me think about that Sprite lightening from my perspective and see if I can offer some thinking on it.[/QUOTE]Actually, one thought that comes to mind about Sprites is that they appear in conjunction with the timing of positive lightening from thunderclouds. That normal lightening discharges vast amounts of energy contained within the cloud, and could be looked at as causing an energy deficit between the cloud and the atmosphere above it. That could cause the energy in the upper atmosphere to gather and "flash" into the cloud to equalize the energy and fill the deficit. The formation of the plasma cloud that releases the Sprite could be an interim step in the process of replenishment of the energy in the cloud. The interim step, the plasma cloud, would be dealing with larger energy forces at the boundary of the upper atmosphere, and could have a time delay effect in its build up, before it releases the Sprite. Just some ideas as food for thought.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We have a banquet of speculation laid out before us.
Let us gorge as only laymen can.
I tried to work out how gravity worked years before I knew about GR.
I am a simply person so I reasoned that empty space was not empty.
And that at any point trajectories passing thru that point could be taken to be infinite.
And that on any trajectory one could reasonably expect to find something traveling from its point of origin to where ever it was going. I was not concerned with what these travellers were but realised space was not empty at all and trying to imaging the comings and goings of all this stuff turned an earlier percived emptiness into a space brim full of "stuff" or energy.
I developed the idea that all this energy must flow in all directions and that the mechanism of gravity could be explained perhaps as a pressure system.
After many years of belief I had come up with something profound I discovered that Le Sage had presented this idea back in 1745.
It was at that time after considering how one could tie the idea with useful math that I discovered GR.
I was happy that science had delt with gravity because I could see that I had no need to pursue my ideas.
Fortunately unlike so many crackpots I embraced GR rather than rejecting it, however I still see space as not empty with possibly unlimited energy potential.
So I think the Sprite thing may be something along the lines of all the energy flying along thru space and then running into our atmosphere and clouds such the there is a build up or rather a back up which manifests as a massive electrical display.
I dont like anologies but think of cars on a free way, they represent the energy rushing from space, they reach the end of the freeway er change it to tollway, where they have to slow up and in doing so create a bank up.
Now is that speculative or what.
So to be no more than difficult I suggest it may work as proposed and the discharge we see is our planets interaction with the flow of space.
I have not looked to see what if any research is going on with Sprites etc but I must have a look to find what professionals think so I can stop making stuff up.
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Opps I just realised this is "alternative theories" not psuedo science and hasten to point out nothing I have said should be taken that I hold a theory.
I understand the implications of the word.
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Lol, fine with me. Let's step through your post>

I assume you still reason that, yes?

No reason not to think that, is there?

Certainly reasonable. We see matter and energy as far as we can currently detect in all directions.

Pressure applies in a sense, but so does fluid mechanics and energy density mechanics which is central in my model, given my "energy statement",

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

There is a long history of contemplation about the universe by the great minds of all ages. I don't think we have any original ideas, but never-the-less we often come up with the same ideas independently, or put old ideas together in different connections and sequences.

Quantifying our ideas mathematically is what makes them useful, subject to peer review, and is required for them to qualify as science.

So laymen gorging on speculation isn't science, but if we understand that, and have a learned layman level of understanding of physics and cosmology, we can talk about it among ourselves. When the science professionals enter, let's hope they are here to teach and not ridicule, :thumbsup:

Comforting thought.

You can't reject GR if you understand it. You can, however, considered it given different cosmological models, and evaluate how well it pertains when the initial conditions differ. GR does not apply to all cosmologies, [humor]just to the ones promoted by people who don't want to be called crackpots, lol[/humor]. Actually, in a universe that has always existed, you come to the first problem with GR. I call it triangle of explanations for the universe:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Can you see where I am coming from with that graphic? If the universe has always existed, the Big Bang Singularity would have had "preconditions", and that is where we left off earlier. The scenario in my model features the "always existed" explanation for the existence of the universe, and employs two main processes, Arena Action and Quantum Action, which I try to describe at length in my volumes of word salad

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

It is, but I find it reasonable. We can agree that space is filled with energy and the energy expands causing the energy density to decline until that local process is interrupted by other energy density action.

Not a bad suggestion at a science perspective, but not the only one that can be considered reasonable and responsible. Since all of the "as yet" unknowns are yet to be conquered (that's going to be never, lol).

Bring it up anytime.

I do too, and no only never call my ideas theory, but I always object when someone refers to them as that. I stick with what I call reasonable and responsible speculation as mentioned in the OP.

 

Well that was somewhat my point, the words describe the non emptiness of space.
Not seeking an ether but with it gone we were left with an impression of empty space.
I can understand your" model" to a limited degree but I am not able to reject it or accept it.
It is your approach I find most acceptable in so far as you dont present as unreasonable.
Interesting I probably cant contribute but I will certai ly look on.
Alex

 

Thank you, and comment anytime.

 

I went ahead and posted the ISU video narrative with the images on the Narrative thread (two posts) for those who don't want to watch the 20 minutes YouTube:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/my-narrated-isu-youtube-macro-overview.144682/#post-3389080

 

It has been my good fortune to have been treated kindly by "science professionals" and I put that down to always referring to my cosmology ideas as "ideas" and never a theory, I worked out that theory in science is fact like, and when anyone pointed out something I thanked them and read all I could find where they had pointed.
Many read a little, and I have done this, and off they go... Instant experts.
Many get their teeth into the anology offerred, I have done this as well, and off they go.
You seem to hold your idea gently and I suspect if a proffessional pointed out something you would listen rather than telling them you have worked it out and deserve recognition as the worlds greatest interlect.
I think it is interesting how human understanding has grown in such a short period.
It was only recently, within a life time, we discovered the Universe was more than just the Milky Way but went on to find there are billions of spiral galaxies, as well as elipticals, it fact billions of the various classifications of gallaxies...
Now if you had presented your idea back in the times where the Universe was considered synonymous with the Milky Way you would have been laughed at and yet your idea would have been closer to the truth. Is that not interesting.
So many ideas become reality.
I watched the moto bike races last night and thought if you could go back in time and descibe such a vehicle the best minds of those days would say the concept was beyond impossible er well not possible.
Imagine presenting a race bike, or so many other take for granted devices, to a populace three hundred years ago.
So to many your idea is beyond belief and beyond proof but who knows what the cosmology in the next three hundred years will determine.
Nevertheless keep your feet on the ground and remember infalibilty in humans is a myth.
Alex

 

True, my model has been shaped by all of the input I have received over the years. I solicit and research all comments and corrections, and change the model where appropriate. The current update process is supposed to be a group effort, and though most of my input comes from laymen, certainly some of them are in line with a professional level of analysis. You could go back through my threads and see that I appreciate and respect constructive input.

Valid comments. I appreciate you being here and your participation.

Continuing the ISU update:
Part of what determines if GR works with a given cosmology has to do with the speculated explanation for the beginning of the universe, or lack of a beginning in the case of "the universe has always existed". If you interpret GR to imply that there was an infinitely dense hot ball of energy that expanded faster than the speed of light into what we call our inflationary universe, you may be invoking the Singularity, which I classify as the "something from nothing" choice on the Triangle graphic shown earlier:
Triangle of Cosmological Explanations:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Again, comments are welcome and encouraged because this model is a "group think" over the years. The ISU is a "bottom up" cosmology, and a complete cosmology has to take a position on the "beginning". That choice determines what axioms are in play throughout the model.

Leaving out the "God did it" explanation (as not being scientific), my view is that General Relativity fits better with the "something from nothing" explanation, while a multiple Big Bang cosmology, like the ISU model, fits better with "always existed". I would like to hear from some members on that if possible, because the preconditions to the Big Bangs are what differentiates my model from the "something from nothing" cosmologies.

The model features ideas about "precondition mechanics" that are in accord with a "reasonable and responsible" methodology as mentioned in the OP. Those mechanics and mechanisms are primarily described by two action process, one at the macro level, and the other at the micro level. There are striking similarities between the two process.

Featured in the video, the process of Arena Action operates at the macro, or grand scale, and predicts a multiple Big Bang arena landscape, with action including arenas that intersect and overlap and thus regularly produce big crunches that collapse/bang into new Big Bang arenas. The micro level process of Quantum Action predicts a universe full of wave energy from which standing wave particles are regularly established and maintained, and in which gravity is the effect of the imbalance between the inflowing and out flowing standing wave energy components. All mater is composed of wave energy in quantum increments, and the energy density of space consists of the inflowing and out flowing gravitational waves that not only maintain all particles with mass, but that are the explanation for the interaction of massive objects, right up to in-swirling black hole collisions.

 

Building a bottom up model of cosmology: first steps into the "as yet" unknown.

If it is true that the side of the Triangle of Cosmological Explanations, shown above, that you choose at the very beginning of building a "bottom up" view of cosmology helps determine, or at least puts restraints on the axioms or basic assumptions that a model can reasonably invoke, then "always existed", accommodates a few particular axioms about the extent of space, time, and energy. In the Infinite Spongy Universe model (ISU), they are all infinite; they are referred to as the Three Infinities.

On the other hand, a different set of basic assumptions would have to go with the "something from nothing" choice from the triangle, because a universe emerging from a point-space or at a first point-in-time is the opposite from a universe that has always filled all points of infinite space and time. Given a beginning that marks the introduction of space and time and energy at the same moment, as in the Big Bang Theory (BBT), you would necessarily come up with finite proportions of space, time, and energy.

Assuming a model with a beginning, you can still invoke some infinities, of course. You can say that the point-space was timeless and always existed, was infinitely dense with energy, or you could say there was no "before" because time didn't start until the Big Bang. You could say that time will be infinite going forward to eternity, and that the universe could expand forever, always filling all space that exists along the way because space is stretching or being added as you go, or various other "logical" speculations. But you cannot invoke the Three Infinities. They are what differentiates the ISU from BBT.

 

Introducing the set of invariant laws, the technique of a personal view, & applying the "Reasonable and Responsible" Methodology

Given the premise that there is one set of invariant natural laws governing the universe, then there is known science, and "as yet" unknown science. My attitude is that the scientific community is continually chipping away at the unknown, and as they do, the consensus view of cosmology evolves. A layman who follows along is always behind in that evolution, but can attempt to keep up by staying in touch with developments in the popular science media, etc.

The ISU model is one of those personal layman level models, and isn't presented as professional cosmology, with mathematical quantification, journals, or peer review. It is derived out of what a layman can obtain from the respected scientific sources, the popular media, layman level books and articles, courses, the Internet, and science forums about cosmology. Anyone who has taken that type of material in over the years knows as well as I do, that the scientific consensus is not complete, is often interpreted in different ways, and is continually evolving as the scientific community adds to known science.

The "reasonable and responsible" methodology that I employ is a tool for any layman who wants a more "complete" personal view. It can help to understand what we can about life, the universe, infinity, and philosophy, beyond what science is able to say with certainty, or is willing to say in a peer reviewed environment. In order for a layman to sort out what they encounter from the various sources, and to help fill in the gaps with ideas that bring the pieces together in a coherent and complete "bottom up" layman level view of the cosmology of the universe, a step by step process seems appropriate, and works for me.

Just like I share my journey, I want to know the minds of others who have taken such a journey.

 

I have enjoyed such a journey.
It started from wondering why comets failed to hit the Sun.
They had so far to fall yet they missed. I had zip science training other than high school, topped the final year with 98% mark but went into law.
I was living as a hermit on 200 bush acres which was surrounded by State forest so I did not get out much, once a month for supplies etc, and devoted all my time to astronomy (visual and photography).
I determined that gravity must have a finite speed such that by the time the comet received a message of gravity from the Sun the Sun must have moved such that the comet was always falling to where the Sun was sometime earlier.
I then began to wonder how the message of gravity was communicated.
I could not workout a mechanism to support the concept of attraction. Such I reasoned would require a two way communication which in my mind seemed not possible.
From there I set upon what could be called push gravity and built my Universe upon that premise.
I could explain in my mind all manner of things using such an approach.
When I ventured onto forums I eventually found out about GR which I liked(not at first) because it had the math I could never work out.
So although GR does not use a force to explain gravity I still think it describes a Universe where the flow of matter or energy or space is the way the message of gravity is communicated.
I am not sure how it all works and doubt that I ever will but the trip started with me knowing nothing and taken me to the current position of knowing nothing.
I try and follow only mainstream ideas and try to fathom how everything works using what we think we know.
I have never liked the big bang because it leaves open the moment of creation. But in time before I leave the planet I hope they can answer my question.. What was there before t=0
You have an answer it seems but the reality is that we dont know and probably will never know.
The trip has taught me not to believe anything, anyone or myself as we really probably dont know zip.
Establishing facts is not easy and one never knows what is entirely dependable.
Nothing is ever proven beyond doubt in my book so I question every thing and always ask... What if?
I am fortunate that I survi ed the trip. I was nearly taken over by the notion that I was right and must tell the world and arrived at a place of contentment knowing that I could think but not let my thoughts be my master.
Alex

 

Why just one Big Bang, why not an infinite landscape of active Big Bang arenas?

The Three Infinities are not science, they are the application of the "methodology" to one of the main questions that come to mind about the consensus BB theory. The question has to do with the issue of the beginning, and I addressed that using the Triangle of Cosmological Explanations and the first steps into the "as yet" unknown. I applied the "methodology", and established the axiomatic Three Infinities; infinite space, time, and energy.

From known science however, the indications of a real "Big Bang" type of event are strong, consisting of good evidence of a dense hot energy ball immediately preceding a rapid expansion of our Big Bang arena into surrounding space. I refer to the raw redshift data, and to the cosmic microwave background to the observable universe. Though the evidence has some issues when it comes to translating it from BBT to the ISU model, I'll deal with the issues later. Regardless, I use those parts from the current BB cosmology, along with the speculative infinities of space, time, and energy, as building blocks of the ISU.

The next logical question that comes to my mind is what caused the Big Bang, and in contemplating that I asked myself, why just one Big Bang?

A little contemplation, and brainstorming on the Internet, resulted in the idea of a multiple Big Bang landscape of the greater universe. That puts our BB event into the perspective of an infinite universe, which is where my model is going. The thinking is that there could be a potentially infinite number of active Big Bang arenas across the landscape of the greater "open" universe at any given point in time. Expanding arenas would continually be intersecting, overlapping, and forming big crunches out of the galactic material contributed by "parent" arenas, at the center of gravity in the overlap spaces. I call that Arena Action.
Why just one Big Bang, why not an infinite landscape of active Big Bang arenas?

The Three Infinities are not science, they are the application of the "methodology" to one of main questions that come to mind about the consensus BB theory. The question has to do with the issue of the beginning, and I addressed that using the Triangle of Cosmological Explanations and the first steps into the "as yet" unknown. I applied the "methodology", and established the axiomatic Three Infinities; infinite space, time, and energy.

From known science however, the indications of a real "Big Bang" type of event are strong, consisting of good evidence of a dense hot energy ball immediately preceding a rapid expansion of our Big Bang arena into surrounding space. I refer to the raw redshift data, and to the cosmic microwave background to the observable universe. I use those parts from the current BB cosmology, along with the speculative infinities of space, time, and energy, as building blocks.

The next logical question that comes to my mind is what caused the Big Bang, and in contemplating that I asked myself, why just one Big Bang?

A little contemplation, and brainstorming on the Internet, resulted in the idea of a multiple Big Bang landscape of the greater universe. That puts our BB event into the perspective of an infinite universe which is where my model is going. The thinking is that there could be a potentially infinite number of active Big Bang arenas across the landscape of the greater universe at any given time.

 

That is a great story, and you touch on many truths about science, cosmology, the nature of an individual journey, and your own nature. I appreciate it.

The history of my journey is in many past threads, mostly archived at SciForums, and your discussion of gravity reminded me of a graphic I posted in an earlier thread:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Changes have occurred in the model since then, but I bet you can appreciate where I was coming from.

QW

 

For no other reason than to be difficult and pass the little time I have left let me present to you some thoughts.
Remember I made my living first in law (small firms involved in conveyancing, estates and minor court work nothing to write home about) and later in real estate (residential sales and management nothing big time) so I have learn to act for the client.... to argue the unarguable or to sell the unsaleable.
I win or sell for the client who employs me.
So I will take an opposite position an argue against you and sell you other ideas.
Firstly I will tell you a story, a true story, involving myself and some stray cows.
It is a simple story but I believe one could extrapolate its implications such that we could question the very basis of our scientific method.
We both know what I mean by scientific method I would think but I outline it briefly so that you can draw attention to any misunderstanding I may hold and this would be wise because I am afterall not a scientist and have no delusion that topping the class all those years ago reflects any ability in my advanced years.
Ideally the scientific method proceeds I suppose from an idea a scientist gets for whatever reason, rhey come often in strange circumstances and at strange times, but we get to a point where that idea presented neatly can be called a hypothisis, it is now probably best thought of as a reasonable idea that seems reasonable, from there we interpret data do math do experiments incorporate earlier work to present a scientific theory, which as we have both already agreed, is much more than a mere idea but could be best described in laymans terms as "facts" so we can appreciate that a scientific theory is not just a speculation one forms akin to what we often describe as a "hunch", but and inaddition our scientific theory requires that it set out a testable prediction. We can lump all of this into and title a scientific model. Lets not forget that our model may be seekinh to replace an existing model so we must heed the additional requirement that this new model if it is to replace an existing model must in effect do a better job.
I hope in an effort to be brief I have not over simplified the matter which of course I must have.
So I am in the bush and surrounding my humble cabin is a fair amount of grass I call lawn and note in my world that means no more than short grass. Yet for reasons of safety and minimisation of risk from bush fire I must keep this "lawn" area mowed.
So I was delighted on return from my infrequent shopping trip to discover I had be visited by some cows, who I believe are part of a wild herd I have encountered when walking some miles away from my cabin. Clearly they had no ears tags or brands and ran when they noticed me in the very dense bush.
These visitors had eaten a great deal of grass around my cabin and so much so that there were areas that did not need mowing. How good was that. Later that night they returned I could not see them but I could hear them eating grass well away from the cabin.
They did not return the next day or the next night, in fact they did not return.
So two weeks passed and I had occassion to make an early trip to town.
It occurred to me that I could encourage the wild cows to return by setting out a "salt lick" as it was "common knowledge" that if you wanted to bring cattle in that laying out some sale licks would do the job, standard practice for so many cow cockys.
So I went to town but could not make it to the rural agent so missed getting the salt licks.
I return to my cabin thinking what a shame. I really wanted to get those salt licks set out for those cows.
Well the next day sitting quitely processing some astro captures from a couple of nights earlier I hear the cows. I looked out the window and sure enough five of them eating my grass.
I was very happy but then it dawned on me.
If I had purchased the salt licks and laid them out my "hypothisis" and my prediction would mean my "theory" was somewhat valid, and confirmed the pre existing knowledge of all the cow cockys.
I could imagine myself telling cow cockys of my idea to bring in the cows with the salt lick and how it worked and of course we all would agree setting out salt licks bring in the cows.
But there was no salt lick pur hased or laid out.
Does this suggest that when we have an idea we somehow find proof by way of our predictions.
Sure we do.
Now you say you see multiple big bangs and that seems fair, why not, but you now assume there was indeed a big bang.
Let me suggest your cosmogy relies upon the big bang theory being the correct one.
We know it has made predictions which have been tested true but could we be making the salt lick mistake?
Our parrallel is clear.
Do you now feel comfortable including multiplebig bangs in your infinite Universe.
What other ways could you interpret all you think you know.

I think the moral of the story is no matter how our facts add up we may be wrong and never understand why.

Why did those cows come back not for a salt lick thats for sure but if I had put that salt lick out who could argue with my idea and the view of all the cow cockys that would agree with me.

Out of any event in my life I felt it was the cow incident that lent me some wisdom.

Alex

 

Further I wonder how your infinite Universe came into being or I guess what you are saying that it has always been there here wherever.
I think of infinite as meaning.... No top.. No bottom.. No sides.. No start.. No end.. No limit as to how big or how small. No limit on how small is hard to get ones head around.
And if infinite does that suggest infinite replication or are each of us unique in the infinite Universe.
Have a great day
Alex

 

And those cows never came back.
Maybe they were sacred cows delivering to me wisdom.
But it is funny to think how I would have argued for the salt lick case and indeed everyong who knows cows would have as well
Alex

 

I see your point; the scientific method carries the need for some rigor, some investment that brings with it responsibility to contribute to known science, beyond any layman ramblings about arenas and unusual mechanics. Yet we agree that I am not presenting my "model" as science, but as a layman's effort to fill the gaps where those tried and true models leave questions unanswered. You said earlier, "I have never liked the big bang because it leaves open the moment of creation." I think you see that I have had the same problem with BBT, and have addressed it in my recent posts, through my own methodology, though not in any way that qualifies it as important or scientific. It helps me make cosmology more complete in my own mind, but knowing that we all think differently and value different ways to spend our time. I often refer to my "compulsion" with cosmology as a hobby, and it fills time, keeps my mind active, and helps me grow my knowledge of mainstream science at the same time; all good.

I don't want to have you think that, lol. I rely on the well know scientific evidence and facts that support BBT, but there is much about BBT that I can't abide.

I do feel comfortable with the BB arena landscape, and there are of course other alternatives, but none that I have found that suit my particular brand of delusion. It is not just the ideas we hold, but what we get personally by developing them and sharing them for discussion.

the Cow Incident is another great story; your story telling skills are apparent.

I've been online since the 1987? World Fair in Nashville, and remember various forum discussions over the years about what we know and think we know. One statement I have made at various times and still believe is that "I am wrong, and so are you". It goes to the point you make about believing our own ideas, even though every one of them could be wrong. I don't take myself so seriously that I think I have any ideas that haven't already been fully considered by the scientific community, and I don't have any misconceptions about how my views are looked upon by most members who take a casual glance. Still, there is the matter of the compulsion, lol.

 

I like your approach.
I wish I could contribute more but for what you have you seem to have it covered.
I dont like to attack others ideas really but it happens.
What I do like about your idea, apart from your reasonable presentation of it, is it takes away the point of creation.
I think Fred Hoyle first difficulty with the big bang was coming from a priest he felt it was science justifying cosmogy.
I felt similar without finding his views until much later.
And strangly I support it because I respect the principle of using models.
If it is wrong that will be determined from within.
I dont like dark matter for example but would not have it any other way.
There must be direction and that direction can be wrong but as with navigation when you move you record your position and your observation and that really helps if latter you find you were lost.
Alex

 

Yes. "Always existed" means no beginning, no something from nothing, and no "God did it".

I have made "infinite" a cornerstone, but as I have developed it, I consider both infinite and infinitesimal. Later I will get to it, but in the model I "find" the limit of infinitesimal in regard to the functioning of the tiniest level of wave energy intersections. Below that limit, there is room for still smaller bits of space, but to say that in terms you may relate to, the quantum foam or spacetime foam plays a roll in some models, and I have a counterpart to it in the ISU at the lowest level of quantum action.

Well, I will say that given that there is a huge portion of the "as yet" unknown invariant natural law, what may or may not have driven the cows to bring you a message is still safely hidden.

Thank you for that. It is true that a cosmology that features a beginning is hard to differentiate from the "God did" explanation for the existence of the universe.

Thanks again, and you do contribute by reading and acknowledging the steps that I present.