Hypothesis of a Cosmology Based on a Foundational Medium

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by quantum_wave, Dec 10, 2012.

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

    The pinhole concept is a description that proposes to reduce the nature of the action at the foundational level to "almost" discrete

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    (the smile is because "almost discrete" is intended to attract your attention to the fact that it is not actually discrete). But still, the overriding action at that level is continuous relative to the medium. The thing that makes it have a "almost discrete" characteristic is the time delay between the convergence of expanding wave energy densities (colliding pressures), and the emergence of a new spherical out flowing pressure wave from those convergences.

    That time delay represents unseen action at the foundational level where the wave energy density of the parent waves is participating in a compression of the foundational medium. That action appears as a time stoppage when viewed from a theoretical perspective close to the scene where the compression is taking place. You can't see the compression of the medium, and the wave action of the parents appears to slow to a near stop in that tiny overlap space, but continuous action is still occuring in the medium at that location.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    I've been conducting a thread in the Physics and Math forum lately named Gravity's Mechanism. I have tried to be polite enough not to try to expound on my so called model to any extent over there, but some interesting things occurred to me as a result of the discussion. In my model, I propose that the curvature of spacetime by the presence of matter and energy is simply conventional wisdom derived from an almost perfect mathematical quantification of gravity. I say that though the EFEs could be almost a precise quantification of the effect of gravity, gravity could be completely different from curved spacetime. I'm conducting my model as if the generally accepted GR has the right math and the wrong scenario.

    I keep the math, drop the curved spacetime scenario, and invoke the concept of wave energy density of the foundational medium scenario, thus transitioning from General Relativity Theory to my so called model.

    In my model the curvature of spacetime is an unnecessary concept. Though it utilizes the mathematics of GR, and presents an understandable "as if" cause and effect relationship where matter and energy curve space, and curved spacetime "tells" matter how to move, spacetime fails as a replacement for the mechanism of gravity

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . In my model the EFEs quantify gravity "as if" the gradients of wave energy density of the foundational medium were "telling" the standing wave particles of matter how to move.

    In my model the mechanism of gravity is wave energy traversing the medium, and wave energy also produces everything physical. Particles are composed of synchronized standing wave patterns. Wave energy is conserved and is continually traversing that medium to and from all directions at all times because the standing wave patterns that compose particles have both inflowing and an out flowing wave energy components.

    The quarks and electrons that make up atoms are each composed of standing wave energy, and their presence is maintained by inflowing and out flowing wave energy. Their motion is caused by an imbalance between the directional inflowing wave energy and the spherical out flowing wave energy. The out flow is equal in all directions, i.e. the spherical waves that emanate from particles and objects become the directional inflowing waves that maintain the presence of standing wave patterns.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    Thinking on a grand scale from my so called model:

    Arena Action

    Our big bang arena is the result of the interaction between two or more arenas like ours that formed before ours, perhaps hypothetically about 500 billion years years before, depending on some variables. Each arena is characterized by expansion, and that expansion equates to the separation momentum of the galaxies and galaxy groups that formed within them. Separation momentum is the conservation of the momentum imparted to particles that form from the dense state energy of the each infant arena during the period of "inflation", so the galaxies in each of the parent arenas were all moving away from each other when their growing Hubble volume of space caused them to intersect and overlap.

    Infant arenas are dense dark energy that emerges from a big crunch.

    The emergence of the new arena is preceded by the bang. The big bang is the collapse of the big crunch and is caused when the inflowing galactic matter from the parent arenas accumulates under the influence of gravity until the crunch reaches "critical capacity".

    At critical capacity the particles of matter that make up the crunch collapse, giving up all of their internal particle space, causing the big bang. It is a collapse of matter into the dense state of wave energy, so at the instant of the bang the contents of the arena has collapsed into high density wave energy, the "dark energy" that someone elsewhere wondered if I had thought of including in my model. It is there, and in the infant arena it is all that is there. At the instant of emergence the dark energy is expanding as it goes through the natural process of energy density equalization (conventionally called inflation) with the surrounding low energy density left in the space that the crunch formerly occupied. I would characterize it as a collapse/bang.

    Now let's step back and put the process of arena action into the perspective of the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe. There is only one universe, so a big bang is not a universe, it is a finite event within the infinite landscape of the greater universe.

    Big bangs are separated by a distance in space that can be described by going back to the example of parent arenas. Let's hypothesize that there were two parent arenas, though multiple parent arenas is certainly possible in my model. The two parent arenas might be of different ages and at different stages of galactic maturity. Those parent arenas would be unremarkable, given that they have the same life cycle as every other arena in the arena landscape. They formed when their parent arenas overlapped and shared galactic matter in a swirling rendezvous that occurs at the center of gravity in the overlap space.

    One thing we can say is that the parent arenas formed a long ways away from each other, which is simple mechanics. Since we are saying that the parent arenas are mature and are hosting a full complement of galaxies, then we are saying that they had been in the process of expansion for billions and billions of years, so they formed a long long time ago. We also are saying that the rate of separation of the galaxies and galaxy groups within each arena was similar and that it featured some ongoing acceleration over time like we are beginning to observe in our own arena.

    With that perspective, the two parent arenas were part of the arena landscape, and that landscape featured them and an infinite number of similar arenas across the infinite space of the universe. Each arena expands until that expansion is interrupted by converging with another mature arena, and the result of that convergence (interaction) is the crunch/collapse/bang of a newly emerging arena composed of a portion of the galactic material from each parent.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.

Share This Page