About Topics from the Fringe - AltTheory

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by quantum_wave, Jan 3, 2017.

  1. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    About Topics from the Fringe-AltTheory

    ... spacetime changes the meanings of time and space, such that in Special Relativity the time dilation between two events in different inertial frames can be addressed logically, and quantified mathematically, as if the differences were due distance differences caused by the curvature of spacetime, instead of being due to differences in the velocity of light through different wave energy density environments, I agree.

    If you mean that time is not a central factor in quantum mechanics because in the quantum realm there is little chance of quantifying time as it relates to quantum events, I couldn't disagree.

    My explanation for it all, call it the wave energy density hypothesis, models a universe that is nothing but wave energy. All wave energy action is in accord with an invariant set of natural laws that govern local wave energy density, wave-particles, and processes, with limits on the maximum density permitted by nature, and thresholds that come into play during action processes and wave-particle interactions.

    There are energy to matter processes, and there are matter to energy processes, and all wave intersections involve local changes in wave energy density, as well as a time delay as the density changes occur.

    I simply describe and model the speculative consequences of a set of axioms, and hypothesize processes as the natural limits and thresholds are reached and play out.

    For example, we have good observational evidence for a Big Bang event that has set our observable universe into expansion billions of years ago; the raw redshift data.

    We have good observational evidence of a cosmic microwave background radiation, but I predict a better explanation for that is that there is a greater universe, a multiple Big Bang universe, beyond our expanding arena. The greater universe is characterized by a potentially infinite history of big bangs and expanding arenas that merge, form big crunches out of their shared galactic material, then collapse/bang into new arenas. Each new expanding arena fills with the residual light/microwave energy background from a lengthy heritage of big bangs and arena action as they "inflate"/expand out into pre-existing surrounding space.

    I also predict that the arena process of matter-to energy-to matter defeats entropy, providing a basis for a universe that has always existed, and has always supported life, which I model as an interative and generative process leading to life forms, that then can evolve to fit their local and changing environments.

    That all leads me to derive my philosophy of Eternal Intent, but that is in a different chapter, lol.
    In the early 2000's, across a host of science forums, my recollection is that members would say it was Woo to deny the Singularity (Big S), i.e., a beginning of time and space from a zero volume point from which all energy emerged.

    People aren't married to that anymore. Equivocation about the Singularity has become the consensus. Try going to Photobucket and searching for "Big Bang Singularity", hoping to find an appropriate image. It is clearly not science that is at the front of the images that come up.
    http://i648.photobucket.com/albums/uu203/umm_rumaysa/scenic pictures/history-of-the-universe.gif

    Now, if my perception is good, it is woo to think that our observable universe did come from the Big S, out of nothingness. It seems to me that the consensus is that the singularity (small s) is simply a mathematical point where the backtracking of our expansion reaches too far into the infinitesimal, beyond what is physically possible in the quantum world.

    I take that to mean that backtracking is fine, but there was never a point where there was no space, and where time wasn't already passing. Given that the "baby" Big Bang logically occupied pre-existing space, where the clocks were already ticking away, I can make the prediction that there were preconditions to the Big Bang.

    What do you think?
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2017
    danshawen likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,950
    Hooray! Steady State is back. I did miss it.

    Sure. If one (large) Big Bang is possible, then it simply isn't possible to discount the possibility of multiple smaller ones, and with similar initial conditions. Actually, it fits even better with the Cosmic Background Radiation data and inflation. And there isn't any good reason I can see not to think that time always existed and continues to exist independent of one or many such energy transfer events, not to mention conservation of energy, or temporary non-c0nservation as the case may be. It does help to understand exactly what time is.

    Of course you realize, some here and elsewhere will try for all they are worth to relate this to the seven days of creation and all manner of polytheism pretending to be monotheism. It goes with the cosmological territory, no matter where you post it.

    Good one. And yes, even the correct forum for it. It's demonstrably no more woo than the BB currently is.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2017
    quantum_wave likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    Very nice of you to say you missed the Steady State, which I have been proposing for some time. Of course, "infinite and eternal" plays nicely with the Perfect Cosmological Principle and PCP is Steady State friendly:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_Cosmological_Principle


    It also does fit nicely with the CMBR as well:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The images show hemispherical anisotropy, which comes with various far fetched explanations, none of which is the simple intersection of two expanding Big Bang arenas with differing temperature signatures, preceding our own Big Bang; go figure.

    As for the creation vs. my model, I put everyone on notice in my profile statement: Anything that seems Supernatural, has natural causes that we don't yet understand. I'm willing to argue that point, but in the past, I have won such engagements, IMHO.

    And the Woo factor does exist in BB, big time. Smolin's "The Problem with Physics", addresses some of it, and any Google search for "problems with the Big Bang" will bring up as many talking points as you could want.

    There is so much material for this forum; we will never run out, lol.

    Any comments?
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,950
    It's time now for paddoboy to try and lambast your theory for not explaining the details of primordial nucleosynthesis, or that it runs afoul of Guth's version of inflation. Funny thing is, not only is it already accounted for; it's built in. I really like this. It has a timeline I can easily live with that doesn't vaguely resemble that other brand. And best of all, it has no need to make relativistic time dilation corrections from the date of a single high energy event. Any such corrections are evenly distributed throughout timespace.
     
  8. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    Yes, I do respect the raw redshift data, and the model does not require spacetime corrections at every time point along our arena's expansion profile.

    As for Guth, I have avoided local faster than light by relating the velocity of light to the local wave energy density, which is at nature's highest point along the curve when the Big Bang happens. Viewed from outside the Big Bang event, the light wave lengths would appear lengthened relative to their local wave lengths, because from any vantage point outside the arena, the local wave energy density will be much lower, relative to the density within the arena. Observed from inside the arena/event horizon, light wavelengths would correspond to nature's highest energy and shortest wave lengths at the time of the event, if I am making the right speculations.

    Considering the clocks positioned outside and inside the event horizon, the clock of an observer outside would run much faster because it is functioning at a much lower wave energy density. An infant twin inside the arena wouldn't even be old enough to tell time by the time the outside twin died of old age.

    In this type of model, nucleosynthesis is more like the decay of a massive particle that has the mass equivalent of an entire Big Bang. I do think of the Big Crunch as an arena particle, even though it is hypothetically composed of the wave energy from roughly half of the particles that existed in the galactic structure of each parent arena. As those arenas overlapped, their galactic material merged in what has a word salad description as a swirling rendezvous, lol.

    The gravitational wave energy in that rendezvous is approaching nature's highest density, and when the limit density is reached (critical capacity is the term I use), the crunch collapses, negating the particles into their constituent wave energy as they give up their individual space. The collapse/bang is hypothetically a collapse of the particles causing an inflowing wave of energy toward the center of gravity, and a bounce of that inflow off of natures maximum density limit at the core.

    That is how I depict the Big Bang event that set our observable universe into expansion mode.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  9. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,950
    And there seems to be no need of a higher energy collision or supergravity accelerations in the model to explain dark energy. That would have been improbable anyway. The prospect of an invisible high potential energy universe within this one (not a multiverse) is an idea that has always fascinated some of the brightest scientists and engineers I have met over a lifetime. I hope I did their ideas justice.

    Please realize, you will be grilled about dark energy in your model. You will need to explain the supernova data at some point. There is haggling over it right now, but it will not go away. All observables must be satisfied.

    Your multiverses are there, simply not observable, is that correct?

    Still room in there for G-d, if someone really insists, too. But I do like the pure science orientation of the model. The best science doesn't come from dusty volumes of ancient history or cultural artifacts. It never did. I happen to know that G-d loves science and the trial and error model it is based on. It didn't take more than one attempt to get the process (not the result) of evolution right, did it? Can't argue with that kind of success. Science works just like evolution did. If you don't like it (science working better than religion to understand the universe) tough cheese; go make your own actual universe if this one isn't good enough for you. Too bad if evolution stops you.

    Speaking of which, wasn't the world supposed to end again on New Year's Day 2017? Gullibility, like energy, seems to have few practical limits in this universe.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2017
  10. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    Dark energy is the "force" of energy density equalization in my model. I will refer back to post #43 6/29/2016 in the recent ISU 2017 Update thread where I posted:
    [Post]Focus on the two basic forces of the ISU model, and a note about the variable speed of light

    Those action processes are at the heart of the mechanics of the two major forces mentioned in post #42, gravity and "equalization". I simplified the two forces into one word for each as an salute to the simplicity of the "bottom up" methodology, but immediately let me expand on the force referred to as "equalization". In three words it is "energy density equalization", and in a sentence, that means when there are two wave energy density environments adjacent to each other, and not contained in the form of matter, they will merge into each other and their energy density will equalize across their combined contiguous space.

    A fine example of each of the two forces at work is at the collapse/bang point in the preconditions to our arena's Big Bang. Quantum gravity is the force that brought together galactic material and cold dark matter remnants of each parent arena, via a swirling rendezvous that took place in their overlap space, to gradually form a Big Crunch. The eventual collapse/bang of the Big Crunch results in what mainstream science refers to as faster than light (FTL) acceleration of the resulting hot dense energy ball. That expansion is fueled by energy density equalization in the ISU model, which is the quintessential application of that force. The circumstances of it feature the very high energy density released by the collapse/bang, which immediately begins to equalize with the very low energy density surrounding the crunch, and the result is, as they like to say, FTL expansion of the hot dense energy ball into the surrounding space left bare by the accumulation of the crunch.

    Note: The speed of light in the ISU is dependent on the local wave energy density, and is variable across space that has different wave energy density environments.
    [/post]
    -------------
    The note at the end of that post was meant to allow for the fact that in my model, there is a variable speed of light, so FTL is not happening, it is relative motion between local energy density environments that result in the mistaken conclusion that FTL happened.

    Accelerating expansion was asked about by Alex in my recent ISU thread. I described my thinking in post #8 in the 2016 ISU thread where I posted:
    [post]The observed acceleration of our expansion could be explained by the hypothesis that the two parent arenas continue to decline in energy density as time passes, and so our expansion appears to speed up as time passes.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    [/post]
    -------
    That rather inadequate image depicts the observed acceleration of expansion. Follow the diagram through the various stages of expansion during the formation of the Big Crunch, and through various stages after the Big Bang. My speculations is that it relates to the decline in our arena's density over time as expansion into the low and declining energy density of the surrounding space formerly occupied by the converging parent arenas.

    When you referred to the multiverses being out there, but not observable, that is correct, except that there is just one multiverse, composed of multiple Big Bang arenas. The other arenas are not readily observable, except there is the cold spot in our microwave map. I like to consider the possibility that the cold spot marks a potential intersection with an adjacent expanding arena. Each arena features expansion until it is interrupted by intersecting with other arenas. Arena action is a continual process that takes place across the entire landscape of the greater universe.

    G-d as you put it, is a natural consideration as intelligent life forms arise and begin to consider the science of the world they are discovering. My opinion is that most people who contemplate this model will fail to appreciate that none of it requires the Supernatural, and their individual philosophies will guide whether or not they find the hand of God in it. To me, the "as yet" unknown is just science waiting to be explained.

    People can be gullible though, and should be cautioned in all human endeavors to think for themselves, and be suspicious of people who claim to have all the answers. I, personally, know nothing for sure

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
     
    danshawen likes this.
  11. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,950
    The chief problem I see with your model is your insistence on the speed of light being variable. It is not. It can't be.

    You evidently aren't getting my explanation of the rest frame being a relativistic vector summation of ± c for all inertial reference frames. If you aren't referring the measured speed of light to the rest frame in all inertial reference frames, as Einstein did, then you are left with explaining exactly what the speed of light that you are measuring or theorizing is relative to.

    If you can't answer that question (relative to what, exactly), and if as you maintain that a variable speed of light is integral to your ISU model, then you are finished, because you are basically saying, "I'm smarter than Einstein", the only response to which is to ignore both you and your model.
     
    quantum_wave likes this.
  12. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    The speed of light in any given frame is invariant. Space has wave energy density, and that affects the velocity of light in that local frame relative to a different frame. The invariant local speed of light is variable relative to a frame with a different wave energy density. Which point do you object to?
     
    danshawen likes this.
  13. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,950
    A variable speed of light is inconsistent with variable time dilation, as strange as it may seem. It is the bedrock assumption on which relativity is based, and without it, relativity and everything derived of it loses any traction in terms of describing the physical universe.

    A variable speed of light cannot be an essential element of a theory that posits energy density as the most important physical component of the universe mainly because density depends on volume and volume is variable depending on relative motion. In other words, your version of energy density is not invariant. Rest energy density is, only because the speed of light is. Bound energy in relative motion does not contain a determinate amount of energy or energy density unless it is referred to their centers, and even then, unless you ignore the absurdity of a volume of space, you will get no answer that has any meaning. And it is also what determines the speed of light. But don't expect to make a proportional relationship with it. Can't divide by zero. Those are symbols, and they have limitations because that is all finite minds can work with.

    If volume = 2 x volume, then 1 = 2 and c = 2 x c, all of which is utter nonsense.

    A positron and an electron collide head on. What does the energy density of the event look like as they approach each other at relativistic (so close to c that the difference is negligible) speed? What volume did you use? What was the net speed at which they approached each other? No fair waiting until after the collision, because time is the only dimension that exists anyway, and determinate volumes / determinate energy densities don't exist at the speed of light. That's one reason, it is only the speed of light that is invariant. Yet the speed of light cannot be the basis of time itself, particularly for bound energy. If it were, light could not propagate at c; time itself would stop, and it doesn't. Entanglement is the basis of time. Time dilation is the basis of entanglement, but it does have meaning outside of bound energy, with respect to their centers or rest energy frames.

    Can you write an expression for energy density that does not involve a volume?
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2017
    quantum_wave likes this.
  14. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,950
    I will further stipulate that your definition of energy density cannot contain a cubic volume of light travel time, AND if it contains a sphere of equidistant light travel time, that volume must always be referenced to its own (and not any other) reference frame spherical volume / energy density. This is the only absolute volume in time-space that exists, and even that volume has some relativistic properties that are not generally acknowledged or understood, but at least rest energy, rest energy density, and invariant light speed will always work in that frame.

    Only the time dilation at the geometric center of that rest volume may be related to the time dilation/ geometric centers of other particles of bound or unbound energy, or to the rest of the inertialess quantum field pervading and at rest relative to time-space. It is relative time dilation that in part defines energy density. Here, the term "inertialess" time-space does not necessarily mean time-space without energy, for that is where inertia itself derives.

    You understand now why it is so important to ditch "space" as a concept, if you are to understand all of the physics of events involving transfers of energy? Ditching "space" means, literally ditching "volume" as a concept, and the "density" part of "energy density", other than for the rest frame referenced to the geometric centers of the rest energy of bound particles. When particles move relative to each other, energy density is simply undefined because space is undefined. Defining it the way Euclid did for a geometric solid is an exercise in futility, as well as a contradiction of relativity. Time and time dilation remain. Saves an awful lot of divide by zero and silly proportional mathematical nonsense unrelated to real physics. A deeper understanding of relativity physics cannot be attained without this realization.

    So, how about the term "ISTL" (time dilation), or "ISEQF" (entangled quantum field), instead of "ISU"?
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2017
  15. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,579
    It does? What do you mean "space has wave energy density"?
     
  16. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    No, that is true. This reply will be lengthy, even when I address only your first sentence, but I'll edit it down as best I can.

    In the ISU, the speed of light is invariant in the local frame, but there is some chance of confusion between my model and General Relativity. "Local frame" doesn't mean the same as a rest frame in GR, or as inertial reference frames either. The theory of GR isn't being invoked when I talk about my model, and the use of the word "frame" does not refer to frame in the same definitional sense as the theory of GR. I make it a practice to refer to the "local frame" as a way to distinguish between GR and the ISU, but that doesn't mean that the reader can discern the distinction without understanding that there is a distinction.

    In GR, an intertial reference frame depicts time and space homogeneously, isotropically, and in a time-independent manner, according to Wiki. I take that to mean that any frame can be a rest frame, and the speed of light is not only invariant, it is not influenced by the physical (local) conditions of the rest frame (let me know if I am not probably depicting GR when I say that). If I'm right, then in GR it is axiomatic that the speed of light is c in the rest frame, but if I'm wrong, and the speed of light in a rest frame doesn't have to be c, but can be less than c, as when light is in the process of passing through some medium other than a vacuum, that would make sense to me. Either way, GR does invoke spacetime in regard to the rest frame, not space and time.

    Time dilation is a term that is best used in regard to SR and GR, and it can be confusing for me to use the term "time dilation" in regard to the ISU, because in GR it requires the measurement of the rate of time passing on two clocks in spacetime, in relative motion to each other, either clock being consider at rest. So in GR, time dilation has a definition peculiar to the measuring of clocks in spacetime.

    In the ISU, there is no spacetime, and the rate that a clock measures time is done in the local fame, which has a local value for wave energy density; every location has wave energy density. Therefore, "local" itself requires a definition in regard to the local value of the wave energy density. It can be a clock sitting on a shelf, at rest relative to the shelf, or a clock in a room, at rest relative to the room, or in a city, at rest relative to the city, and on and on to a clock anywhere, at rest relavite to any other location that you may wish to define. But the local wave energy density must always be considered as a factor in the measurement. Further, an average wave energy density across the volume of space that hosts the clock must be invoked, and that only means that there is a variance between any two local wave energy densities. It is that variance that causes the two clocks to measure time at different rates.

    All that said, I can't abide with spacetime and everything that goes with it in GR. My preferred view of reality is the ISU, and the ISU and GR are very different. For example, to explain why spacetime doesn't work for me, in my model space, time, and energy are infinite, and have always been infinite, i.e., all space has always existed, space does not ever get created or added, space does not curve, there are no geodesics, time simply passes, and space is filled with wave energy. Every point in space has an independent wave energy density at every instant.

    Energy density continually fluctuates because wave energy is a component of particles and objects; each particle has a presence (location) at all times, and that presence is established by the contained energy of the particle. The contained energy of a particle is the amount of wave energy in the particle's space at any instant, and the energy that occupies the particle space is stable when the particle is at rest, and changes when the particle is in motion relative to the local background. However, the wave energy that is in the particle space is constantly changing though the particle is at rest and the contained energy remains the same. That is made possible because the particle has both inflowing and out flowing wave energy components. The inflowing wave energy component is directional, and comes from distant particles and objects. The out flowing wave energy is essentially spherical, i.e., emitted in all directions from the particle or object. Both the inflowing and out flowing wave energy are called gravitational waves in the ISU.

    Wave energy has a specific definition in the ISU that is almost meaningless in GR. Even though LIGO detected gravitational waves, they are not defined as wave energy traversing space, they are defined as ripples in spacetime. There is that distinction again regarding spacetime, between GR and the ISU. There is no spacetime to ripple in the ISU, but instead, there is space through which gravitational waves advance. Further, in GR, the ripples in spacetime are apparently caused by massive events where the equations don't properly account for conservation of energy unless there is a gravitational ripple in spacetime produced, as in the in-swirling black holes that were detected by LIGO, while in the ISU, there is gravitational wave energy emanating form every particle and object that has a presence in space.

    I'll stop here before responding to the rest of your post, because if this explanation of the distinctions between GR and the ISU leaves you cold, then my explanations addressing the rest of your post would not be helpful.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2017
  17. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    Lol, no thanks. I'll come back to this post but I just spent an hour or more on my last post and I'm not going to address the rest of that post or this one until I can evaluate your response to my last post, agreed?
     
    danshawen likes this.
  18. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    You again? I thought we agreed that you intend to poke a stick in my eye, and so I never expect you have any other intention. Am I right?
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2017
  19. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,579
    Yeah probably, I'll just put you on ignore. Have a good day.
     
    Dr_Toad and danshawen like this.
  20. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    Thanks, you too.
     
  21. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,950
    Origin can be harsh but is extremely fair, quantum_wave.

    I still like your ISU model. I don't want you to think that launching a new model or paradigm in physics is easy; it is anything but.

    111+ years after Einstein's first paper on relativity, people still need to scratch their heads to get some of his best ideas through our collective thick skulls. When he said that relativity is incomplete, he really meant that, too. Gödel was his best friend. He knew exactly what he was saying mathematically, and why.

    Within the parts he gifted us, everything is completely consistent, even if it isn't complete. Focus on the parts that are incomplete and finish them by some other means that is an extension to relativity if you are able. Don't do what everyone else does and revert to ancient greek solid geometry or the 19th century math still based on it. That version of geometry only half-assed works in the rest frame, and not at all for quantum spin or entanglement or time dilation the way it physically works.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2017
    quantum_wave likes this.
  22. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    This is certainly disconcerting, lol.
    I thank you for taking the time to come to those conclusions and offer some sound advice. My threads aren't the way someone would launch a new model or paradigm in physics. The ISU isn't presented as if there was anything there that the scientific community hasn't already considered or would be interested in considering. Note my disclaimers that appear all throughout my threads.

    The model I discuss is one man's views, expressed for discussion, learning, and also to have a personal cosmology that goes beyond the current models, and is not presented in a scientific manner that would even be considered by professionals. It is what I see as logical speculations and hypothesis, starting from general accepted observations, and attempting to do what people do, try to make everything in the model internally consistent.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2017
    danshawen likes this.
  23. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    Reading the Fringe topics is a big departure from the moderated science forums, and participants out here should acknowledge, as I do, that though some mainstream science is being questioned in each of these topics, as a whole, the mainstream theories are mainstream for good reason; because together they represent the consensus of the scientific community, which reasonably is the logical source for expertise about what we observe.

    However, science is not static, and theories are sometimes superseded as new discoveries are made, and as new ideas gain support, while the consensus is slow to change. If you are a layman science enthusiast like me, being informed about the mainstream science is an ongoing project, but still various alternative ideas keep coming up for discussion.

    The only place at SciForums you can discuss alternative ideas within the guidelines, is here in the Fringe. Criticize the ideas all you want, poke fun, but be specific as to what you find wrong about an idea, and man-up enough to explain what you think is the right explanation, like danshawen does.

    Back to the intention of exploring fringe topics, there have been several that are on the table for discussion. Throughout the back-and-forth with Danshawen, the following topics have been addressed and put up for discussion.

    1: From the opening post, there is a topic in the statement where I proposed that the curvature of spacetime might have an alternative explanation of being due to differences in the velocity of lightwaves and gravitational waves through different wave energy density environments. I have elaborated on that idea to some extent in subsequent posts, and my comments are open for discussion. In the mean time, I will have more to add on that topic, so call it the Wave Energy Density Topic for future reference.

    2: Another open topic is what I see as a disconnect between between the randomness and uncertainty of quantum mechanics vs. what I perceive as the current direction in QM of quantifying quantum gravity. A quantum solution to gravity wouldn't seem to play very nicely with that randomness and uncertainty, but instead would seem to demand a precise mechanistic approach. This topic can be referred to simply as the Quantum Gravity Topic if anyone wants to contribute.

    3: I suggested a universe composed of nothing but wave energy and hypothesized that there is a set of natural laws that govern the limits and thresholds of wave energy density. I explained what I mean by wave energy and wave energy density, and those comments go with the Wave Energy Density Topic (#1), but this can be called the Natural Laws Topic as well, if you have ideas to discuss.

    4: The observational raw redshift evidence of expansion and the backtracking of it to a Big Bang event was also put on the table for discussion in the OP. If you read that part, notice that there was a response that supports the raw redshift data giving support to Big Bang Theory, without any adjustment for general relativity and spacetime. In a way, that also tends to support the wave energy density hypothesis as opposed to spacetime, but you decide. Call it The Redshift Topic, which is still an open topic to the extent that the actual observations and data don't directly lead to a spacetime conclusion, but if you already invoke a spacetime conclusion, you have to rework the raw observational data to make it fit the theory.

    5: The cosmic microwave background radiation, i.e., the CMBR Topic, was mentioned. The observation is that microwave energy is coming from all directions at all points within the observable universe.

    5A: If you invoke GR and spacetime, you are offered an explanation that there was a "surface of last scattering" that is causally connected to the Big Bang. That surface didn't occur until hundreds of thousands of years after the event, and extended spherically for billions of lightyears before the hot dense ball of Big Bang energy cooled enough to allow stable particles with elections, that in turn began to emit photons. According to Big Bang Theory, those are the photons in the microwave light of the CMB. That very distant "surface" is offered to explain the CMB.

    5B: As an alternative, I offered the idea of a greater universe within which our Big Bang occurred, and hypothesized a multiple Big Bang history which would mean the the inflow of microwave energy would be a natural consequence of a background to a larger Big Bang multiverse. The thinking is that the "surface of last scattering" emits photons back into the expanding arena, and would also be emitting photons in all other directions, into the corridors of continuity. Corridors are how I refer to the space between active Big Bang arenas in the multiverse. There was a response that supported the alternative idea for the origin of the CMB, citing the opinion that the idea was at least as good as the BB theory explanation of the CMB.

    Comments on these or other topics found in the Fringe are appropriate on this thread, as far as I'm concerned.
     
    danshawen likes this.

Share This Page