The ISU, QWC, and EI updates for Pseudoscience fans

Post #1 in current ISU update
(I've noticed that asterisks show up throughout the post that are not intentially part of the content. I think it is an incompatibility between the "Notes" app on my iPad and the text engine at Sciforums, so ignore them if you can.)

For newcomers, I offer this update to the lengthy scenario I*call my model of the cosmology of the universe. *My disclaimer is that it is not professional nor mathematically rigorous, it is not intended as suggestions or hints to the professional scientific community, and it is open for discussion.

In it I label the universe the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU), the cosmology of the ISU is called Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC), and the philosophy of the ISU is called Eternal Intent (EI), all are previous topics of mine that will be updated to include new thoughts if the posting environment here proves conducive.*

Addressing the ISU name, the word "spongy" represents the physical nature of any given patch of the potentially eternal and spatially infinite universe. The contents (wave energy) in that patch of space can expand and contract to occupy more space or less space by volume; space is considered infinite.*

How waves of energy in a patch of space can contract may seem to be a paradox. It is true that wave energy not already contained with a particle will expand infinitely unless the expansion of the wave is partially interrupted by becoming contained within a particle along the way.*

Spatial contraction and expansion of the contents of any such patch are governed by invariant natural laws of physics, my version of which constitutes the QWC portion of the ISU model. Importantly from my perspective, the sponginess has upper and lower limits of wave energy density that are governed by maximum and minimum thresholds which cause wave energy to change state from matter to dense-state wave energy and back to matter in an entropy defeating perpetual balance between expansion and contraction going on at both the micro and macro levels. So the wave energy contraction "paradox" is solved in QWC by attributing the contraction to gravity that causes particles composed of wave energy to accumulate around a center of gravity.*

Energy density is the theoretical quantification of wave energy rippling across a potentially infinite but undetectable foundational medium, i.e. wave energy is the energy carried by the waves as they traverses the foundational medium. *The medium itself is the boundless potentially infinite space occupied at all points by the foundational commodity which is the undetectable substance across which wave energy is transmitted. The amount of wave energy in any given space is the measure of wave energy density traversing that patch of space at that point in time.

The scenario has two levels of order. The small scale where quantum action takes place is best characterized by the presence of matter and the directly associated presence of gravity at the smallest scale, while the large scale displays the effects of the presence of matter and gravity in the galaxy filled mature big bang arenas that play out in and fill the potentially infinite landscape of the greater universe. For perspective, our observable "Hubble view" encompasses a portion of our own big bang arena, one of a potentially infinite number of active arenas that populate the landscape of the greater universe.

At the quantum level, matter is composed of standing wave energy in quantum increments (a quantum at this level being the energy contained in the smallest meaningful wave energy intersection and overlap), and gravity is a directional imbalance in the inflowing wave energy component of the standing wave pattern vs. the always "spherical" outflow of wave energy component from the pattern. "Spherical" is in quotation marks because the sphere of out flowing wave energy from a standing wave pattern is immediately shape-shifted by the surrounding influences of adjacent quantum action, meaning the initial spherical wave out flowing component immediately intersects with the out flowing wave energy components of other standing wave patterns, i.e. inflowing waves in the standing wave pattern are outflowing waves from other particles which have an effect on the shape of the out flowing expanding wave from any given particles. Clear as mud, right?

I should point out here that the standing wave pattern is composed of multiple inflowing waves for all directions and the number of wave intersections going on at any given point in time within a given standing wave pattern is thought to be a significant figure, estimated previously using some speculative ideas and relationships, to be billions and billions within a single established stable particle like a proton.

A particle, therefore, is a disturbed patch of space occupied by standing wave energy that is synchronized into a stable pattern of inflowing and out flowing wave energy components. Every disturbed particle space has a net directional inflow/out-flow differential which establishes the gravitation effect on the particle, i.e. particles move in the direction of the highest net wave energy density inflow for mechanical reasons that are detailed in the more in-depth discussion of the model; hopefully this thread will include an update to supposed wave energy mechanics.

As a point of departure between QWC and mainstream theories, a particle in the foundational medium would equate to internal composition of the fundamental particles in the Standard Particle Model. The important point is that the fundamental particles of that standard model are said to have no internal composition, but in the QWC model they are groupings of synchronized standing waves in the foundational medium. Their internal composition is wave energy in quantum increments. Therefore, a*primary point of departure from mainstream physics is the distinction between the "fundamental" and "foundational". *In terms of my alternative layman QWC model, the known fundamental particles have foundational level internal composition, i.e. the fundamental level of quantum mechanics has a deeper foundational level.

Ramping up from the QWC foundational quantum level to the world of atomic and sub-atomic particles and forces of the mainstream standard model includes details about quantum action, high density and low density spots (wave energy intersections and troughs) within standing wave patterns, foundational particle interactions, and forces including the mechanics of gravity associated with the foundational particles. That level of detail will hopefully be addressed and described in some detail as the model updates unfold, if they are allow to do so in this posting environment.

Further ramping up in scale to the macro level,*QWC invokes big bangs/big crunches, and a potentially infinite spatial arena landscape where a potentially infinite number of these individual crunch/bangs play out by expanding, intersecting, overlapping, and forming crunches of converging galactic material which then bang in accord with the new physics of QWC.*

There is a correlation in the mechanics between the micro quantum level and the macro arena level when it comes to wave energy intersections and overlaps, given that a big bang can be equated with a spherical out flow of energy from a preceding "multiple arena wave energy overlap" just like the mechanics at the micro level where the presence of individual particles are established in a similar process. I use quote marks there because the concept of multiple big bang arenas expands on the concept of an arena mentioned in regard to our Hubble view within our own big bang arena. The concept is that across potentially infinite space, there are a potentially infinite number of active arenas that overlap and out of those overlaps come new expanding big bang arenas that themselves overlap, perpetuating the process; overlapping arenas are the "parents" of new big bang arenas in the model, just like overlapping quantum waves of energy are the "parents" of the standing wave patterns that establish the presence of particles.

I think some clarity can be added by pointing out that the individual QWC big crunches/big bangs could equate to an ultimate level of black hole forming and bursting. But in QWC, the big crunch would encompass the equivalent all of the black holes and all of the galactic material surrounding them in our observable and expended big bang arena and so the order of magnitude is so vastly different from that which we normally attribute to black holes that I refer to a "big crunch" instead of to "an ultimate black hole".

In QWC there is one universe and it is referred to as the multiple big bang arena landscape of the greater universe, the ISU. No matter where you go in this landscape, the view of the greater landscape is essentially the same in all directions and has always appeared essentially the same at all times past and will at all times in the future. It is the "Perfect Cosmological Principle" version of a steady state multiverse of big bang arenas as described in this link:*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_Cosmological_Principle

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Post #2 in current ISU update:
(Please ignore asterisks)

Referencing the previous post, here is the next episode in my delusions about the two levels of order in Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC).*

The levels of order have to do with the size scale, and with the size of what we observe between the two limits of scale where quantum action and arena action take place. A new particle forming in a new arena is forming at the micro level within an arena that is forming somewhere in the grand landscape of the greater universe. The lower level reference is to the quantum realm and quantum action, while the upper level reference is to the big bang arena *landscape and the realm where arena action plays out. Every point in space occupies a position in both levels simultaneously.

The size of the tiniest "meaningful" things at the quantum level is referred to as a quantum space; it has three dimensions and it is the space occupied by the intersection and overlap of quantum waves. To be very basic, an intersection between two spherical quantum waves is a point and a point has no volume, but an overlap of two quantum waves occupies the tiniest meaningful volume of space. Each quantum space is preceded by the intersection event and is established by the overlapping that follows the intersection event.

I put "meaningful" in quotes above because there are waves of all sizes traversing the foundation medium at all points at all times from all directions, but synchronization of quantum waves are the required inflow to the standing waves that establish the presence of mass. Therefore, a meaningful wave is one that participates in the standing wave process and is therefore meaningful to the quantum action process; a quantum wave.

An important feature of the lower (foundational) level is that stable particles form in a new arena as the energy density decreases from the dense-state wave energy of the big bang. Matter formation occurs almost simultaneously across the entire expanding arena when the wave energy density of the dense-state wave energy declines down to the matter formation threshold. This happens quickly after the big bang.

*Foundational particles form first which initiates gravity in the arena soon after the bang, and gravitational clumping and the formation of stable configurations of synchronized standing waves soon form fundamental particles and simple gases. Hydrogen clouds form and condense into first round super-giant stars that contain the wave energy equivalent of whole galaxies. Heavy nuclei form as those first round stars burn fast and collapse, and the extreme novas disburse the heavy nuclei and cosmic dust into vast clouds from which star and planetary systems evolve into whole galaxies around the black hole remnant of the extreme nova; galaxies are "born" from the first round of huge hydrogen stars in the early phases of the new arena.

The dense-state wave energy spawning all of this arena matter and galaxy formation tracks back to a single ball of dense-state wave energy that emerged from the big bang. In the dense-state it is standing wave energy on a grand scale. The nature of any standing wave is that it has two components, the inflowing wave energy and the out flowing wave energy. The inflowing component of this grand scale standing arena wave is the collapse (negation of particles) of the big crunch that preceded it. That crunch contained the remaining particles from the galactic material of the portion of the parent arenas that intersected and overlapped; the particles that are "negated" from the particle state to the dense-state by the gravitational collapse that takes place at the center of gravity of the overlap space. That collapse marks the big bang event and when the collapse occurs it marks the point that the big crunch reached "critical capacity". Critical capacity is the same for every big crunch/bang; it is this natural law of critical capacity that keeps the entire universe from collapsing into a final big crunch.

I put "negation" in quotes above because particle negation is what happens when the crunch finally fails to contain the gravitational compression building up on the particles as more and more galactic material from the parent arenas is accumulated. Negation is the effect that big crunch compression has on the ability of particles to maintain sufficient particle space to function individually; negation denotes the loss of sufficient individual particle space.*

Though a particle can cease to exist, the quantum wave energy of which a particle is composed cannot be created or destroyed and the cessation of the individual particle denotes the threshold where the wave energy density achieves the "dense state". In the dense-state of wave energy there are no individual particles but there is a whole arena worth of particle potential; that dense-state wave energy is the source of particles in the new arena and can be equated to one huge patch of standing wave energy density at the outset of the new arena which is the source of mass that forms in the new arena.

Referring to that dense-state wave energy as an arena particle is not necessarily appropriate in QWC because the arenas are not suspected of being the lower quantum level of some super grand scale at a level of order higher than the arena landscape. QWC is not a "turtles all the way down" or "up" cosmology.

I'll end this post with the statement that QWC is internally consistent and not inconsistent with known science and physical observations. Still, it is a layman's view. My disclaimer is that it is not professional nor mathematically rigorous, it is not intended as suggestions or hints to the professional scientific community, and it is open for discussion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I call this thread a (POS), no need to spell it out....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I can only say, it is what it is. POS to you is fine with me.

 

The "POS" post is devoid of a reference to a single line of content.*I would not be offended by a thoughtful post that could bring up a scientific observation or fact that could not be consistent with the preconditions of a foundational medium and wave energy at the quantum level, or with the big bang preconditions of arena action at the level of the arena landscape of the greater universe. Is there one "stand up" person here who can accept the disclaimers and the intent of the thread, and address the discussion as if it was sincere layman talk about things of interest to layman science enthusiasts.

 

Sorry but there is nothing to comment on. Your posts are just unevidenced hand waving idle conjecture. I admitt I stopped reading them about 1 year ago. So to be fair I tried to read the OP but I could only make it through a couple lines. Your posts are just a series of scientific terms used out of context and haphazardly strung together.

 

Origin: Is this NOT a pseudoscience forum????? Please spell-out POS, Thanks

 

I appreciate what you say. There is nothing new in your response from a year ago, and the fact that you respond at all is a surprising. My posts are not science and are not aimed at the science professional except for the ones who are interested in helping laymen like me along. You have said the same thing more or less right along over the years, to me and to every layman who attempts to communicate with other interested layman.*

Are you a science professional or a science enthusiast in the layman community?

The thing is that from my perspective you have done the hand waving here. I was clear about the disclaimer, and I was forthcoming with the explanations of how I use the various terms, starting with what I mean by "spongy" and then right on through posts 1 & 2. You gave no examples, which is always your MO, and which is why I simply discount your responses as not intended to be discussion, but intended to repeat again and again the same type of comments; no actual argument was given in response to my delusions, no help was given, and the response was of no use to me.

I'll address the rest to everyone else in hopes a "stand up" person who has a grasp of what we know factually about cosmology at the micro and macro levels, and what science does not yet know, might be able to see where I am coming from and might join me in some discussion of what I have posted. If I use a word improperly and don't explain my usage then point it out to me and I will respond and learn. The general scenarios that I discuss are about the things that science does not yet have answers for, and are all preceded by my disclaimers and the explanation that I am not trying to tell the scientific community anything, but instead I am tossing out the scenarios so that any layman who knows what they are talking about will see the departure points from known science and into my delusions. If you cannot detect those points, you probably won't have anything to add or correct and for that matter you probably will agree with the type of response that Origin seems to always offer, general dismissal of a layman's posts when I simply seek a layman level discussion.

 

QW: Well-said!!

 

POS means what you think it means, piece of sh**. And Origin who introduced the term, was quoting me, quoting him (or her)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Thank you. Did you understand what I meant by "spongy" in post #1?

 

I ran into a big problem when trying to accept the Perfect Cosmological Principle and that is galaxies. Most of all matter in the universe is all bunched up into these galaxies! So then how could the Perfect Cosmological Principle apply to when these galaxies get further away from each other? In the grand scheme of things, it appears that it would be impossible to describe a universe that is essentially the same at all times accross a greater landscape of the universe with the presence of galaxies. They do tend to expand away from each other exponentially for the most part.

 

A quote from the link: "The Perfect Cosmological Principle states that the Universe is homogenous and isotropic in space and time. In this view the universe looks the same everywhere (on the large scale), ..."

I understand pretty clearly what you are saying. You have a problem with the Perfect CP because of the time aspect, i.e. the PCP, unlike the normal CP, says that time does not change the grand view. And your point is that the grand view would be continually changing if the universe was composed of a finite set of galaxies that are essentially all moving away from each other as evidenced by the redshift. Do I understand you correctly?

Quote from post #1: "...the large scale displays the effects of the presence of matter and gravity in the galaxy filled mature big bang arenas that play out in and fill the potentially infinite landscape of the greater universe. For perspective, our observable "Hubble view" encompasses a portion of our own big bang arena, one of a potentially infinite number of active arenas that populate the landscape of the greater universe."

In my model there are multiple big bangs and each big bang marks the start of a new expanding arena within which galaxies form as the matter they form from is decreasing in density. I picture a sea of particles forming at an early stage in the arena. The arena is rapidly expanding and so the particles would be moving away from each other if it wasn't for the effect of gravity. Gravity and expansion are opposing forces going on at the same time in each new arena and so at short distances gravity defeats expansion momentum while on the arena level expansion causes the clumps of particles to continue to separate from each other. Eventually gravitational clumping yields galaxies which as we agree are essentially all moving away from each other.

But in my model, one arena will expand as its galaxies separate and it will eventually intersect with another arena. The analogy of the "forest and the trees" can apply here. If you are in an expanding arena you cannot see the other arenas that are expanding toward you, but if you could step out into the deep corridors of space between expanding arenas you would have a view of the larger portion of the arena landscape. The time aspect would present a similar view over time assuming that the expanding arenas overlap, galaxies crunch together from each "parent" arena, and collapse under the influence of gravity in a big crunch. My model proposes that the resulting crunch will reach "critical capacity" and "bang" into a new expanding arena. Do you see what my perspective is and why I invoke the PCP?

 

I am saying that I think the grand view would look differently even if there where an infinite number of galaxies. Even if galaxies are even distributed now, over time, the galaxies will move further away from each other and still have about the same consistancy. It makes it seem like the PCP could never be applied to galaxies, the most abundant thing in the universe.

 

Darn, we posted at the same time. I added some content to my previous post and will give you time to read it and respond this time, lol.

 

If I was going to try and take on such a task I think I would play it safe and just stick to the Cosmological Principle and not the "perfect" one. I think the universe can be infinite or have infinite galaxies and still conform to the CP but not PCP, or the region of our observable universe appears to be closer to the CP. If the PCP was correct, there would have to be another section of the universe (about the size of the observable universe) that we cannot see that is in complete chaos with almost all the galaxies being pulled inward towards each other. How lucky we must be! Even though the Andromeda is on a collision course with the Milky Way, the observable universe doesn't seem to have enough of these occurances, so I think chances are the CP is the correct principle as the simplest solution tends to be the more likely solution. The Perfect Cosmological Principle would in effect have too many possible observable unknowns.

 

Preumably you are a science enthusiast in the layman community, like I am. My thanks for taking the time to think through the concept of the perfect CP vs. the CP. I will write a response in which I will ask you to consider my model in more detail. The problem is with the CP and not the PCP if you are proposing that the galaxies separate forever, and if you consider the big bang as the start of that separation. More later.

 

I would also like to add that the Big Bang was very smooth and homogeneous(so much that it has been said to be unable to be describe as a normal explosion), it would seem like PCP would make it look otherwise (on smaller scales even as large as the observable universe). Even if you where to say that well, a part of the universe that had the galaxies expanding away from each other would be more likely to develop life, there is also a good chance that life could form in galaxies that are heading toward each other or in a more random haphazard fashion. So then observing our universe would be an incredible luck of the draw if PCP was the correct principle, then again the CP would be more likely because galaxies can support life equally regardless of what the other galaxies around it are doing at the time.

 

I'm going to ask you to go back to this post so that I can confirm my understanding of your argument. Correct me if I am wrong. I mentioned a finite number of galaxies in an observable arena (our Hubble view) and you are adding that you would still have trouble with the PCP if there were an infinite number of galaxies, right? And to paraphrase your last post, you think the grand view would be continually changing even if there were an infinite number of galaxies assuming they were all moving away from each other as essentially all of the galaxies, clusters, and galaxy groups appear to be doing. Do I have that correct? I'll move on to the next post from you where you responded in post #16, but I want to confirm understanding between us as we go if possible.

 

Right, I think the formation of galaxies and the observed outward expansion of the universe would prevent PCP, unless there where galaxy formations outside the observable universe that did not correspond at all to what we see in the observable universe (like the forest through the trees example). I beleive that over time galaxies will remain closely similair to how they are now in their formation, but they will mostly be expanded further and further away from each other. This would not show the same consistency of the universe, rather if there are an infinte number of galaxies or not. On the galactic scale the consistancy of matter would be roughley the same, but at the scale of the observable universe, (that would grow larger) the same number of galaxies would be further apart in that area.

Edit: I am not sure if the observable universe could actually grow larger, because the outermost parts of the observable universe is traveling away at the speed of light. It is the space that is expanding FTL, so it is not the speed of light barrier I am concerned with, it is the ability for us to even detect an object traveling FTL even if it is traveling FTL along with the local space itself. Then if the observable universe was not seen to be able to get larger, than there would be less galaxies in it over time as they where seen to hit the FTL observable universe barrier.

Edit #2: It just occured to me that the observable universe could actually get smaller, if an object traveling FTL along with its local space became undetectable. Since the rate of expansion is speeding up, the point where an object would go FTL would become increasing closer, although in the end there would be less detectable galaxies in the visable universe.