That quote brings me to the discussion of the source of the CMB, with is low energy light that has been found at every point in the background of our observable universe. It has been found to be coming and going in every direction no matter what location you choose to consider across our arena. In my model, our observable universe lies within our own expanding Big Bang arena wave of energy, and our arena wave is but one of a potentially infinite number of arenas across the landscape of the greater universe. For that reason, the source of that light energy must differ in my model from the consensus view, because the consensus view does not accommodate any affects present which are dependent on there being a greater universe out there, especially one that has an infinite history of big bang arena action throughout the potentially infinite medium of space. In my model the source of the light energy background within our arena is light energy in the background of the greater universe. In addition, there is a potentially infinite history of big bang arena action having gone on across the arena landscape, so no matter where you are, the background energy exists, and has the same directional characteristics as it has within our arena, i.e. coming and going in all directions at all locations. Only the surrounding wavelength of that radiation is variable depending on the history of big bang arena action in that locality of the greater landscape. Our Big Bang arena wave generated a lot of heat, and as it expands, that heat is dissipated across a larger and larger sphere of space, and so our arena's background temperature will decline until the temperature equalizes with the background temperature of the greater universe surrounding us, and into which our arena wave is expanding. (6519)
But as is often the case when describing my model, that statement is misleading. Though it would be true that the background temperature of our arena would equalize with that of the greater universe if ours were likely to continue to expand, uninterrupted, into an otherwise unchanging energy background of the greater universe, but that is not an option in my model. Our arena's expansion will be interrupted by intersecting with other similar arenas that themselves are expanding into the low wave energy density space of the surrounding corridors of the greater universe. Because of the nature of the process of arena action, it is certain that such interruptions have and/or will occur at various points around the spherical surface of our arena. Our arena's background temperature decline will not go on forever, and will be impacted by the various temperature gradients out there associated with other similar arenas. (6520)
I posted to a new thread in the Cosmology sub-forum yesterday (here) where one of our members quoted a source as saying that in 100 billion years, all of the observational evidence we have today that gives us clues about the nature of the universe will be gone. I raised a couple of questions there about whether the originator of the thread thought that the consensus cosmology would change much in the next hundred years, let alone in the next 100 billion years, based on the fact that our view of cosmology has been changing significantly over the past 100 years. That hasn't sparked any interest yet in talking about changes that have occurred in our thinking since Einstein published his famous equations, or any acknowledgement that there will be more changes in the future as we develop better tools and make new discoveries. Discussing alternatives to the standard cosmology, Big Bang Theory with Inflation, is something that belongs here in the Fringe, under Alternative Theories. That is what makes my hobby of developing an alternative model of the universe appropriate here, and that is why the members who have no interest in alternatives don't bother to muck around out here, unless someone says something that can be falsified or that is inconsistent with scientific observations and data. My personal model is both internally consistent and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data, according to me, and if anyone could show me wrong about that then their input would be welcomed. However, the best anyone has done toward correcting me has been to say it is meaningless to discuss topics that cannot be tested, and therefore those type of ideas cannot be considered as viable alternatives to the consensus theories. I acknowledge that. My layman modeling of preconditions to the Big Bang and of a universe beyond our big bang arena, however, not only violates the sensitivities of those who agree that discussing alternative ideas amounts to pure speculation, but it immediately requires the reader to consider the obvious fact that if space, time, and energy preceded our Big Bang, then the explanation for their existence would amount to more than just, "there was nothingness, and then there was the universe". I would prefer to consider speculative ideas as opposed to accepting that vague scenario. (6630)
Guess what, QW; here I am. Better late than never. So this is what you were talking about last night, and as I recall, last year too. I finally joined so I could issue a response, even though you know from our regular coffee meetings what my response is. I like it, but you stole my continuous wave universe idea, :0.
I hate forums. I finally figured out how to post, after posting a blank message and not being able to edit it to fill in the post. Looks like a might have it now. OK, but I don't think I can read this whole thread, and certainly can't read all of your threads. I was just joking with you about stealing my continuous wave universe idea. I don't see where you mention the equation you showed me that we agree is fundamental to the idea, and seems to me it would be a part of this thread since I see you mentioned it represents your current model.
There are several forms of it floating around SciForums. Here is one: \frac{V_{cap1}}{V_1} + \frac{V_{cap2}}{V_2} + \frac{V_{cap1}}{V_2} + \frac{V_{cap2}}{V_1} = \frac{1/3 \pi h^2 (3 R – h)}{4/3 \pi R^3} + \frac{1/3 \pi h’^2 (3 r – h’)}{4/3 \pi r^3}+ \frac{1/3 \pi h^2 (3 R – h)}{4/3 \pi r^3}+ \frac{1/3 \pi h’^2 (3 r – h’)}{4/3 \pi R^3} \(\frac{V_{cap1}}{V_1} + \frac{V_{cap2}}{V_2} + \frac{V_{cap1}}{V_2} + \frac{V_{cap2}}{V_1} = \frac{1/3 \pi h^2 (3 R – h)}{4/3 \pi R^3} + \frac{1/3 \pi h’^2 (3 r – h’)}{4/3 \pi r^3}+ \frac{1/3 \pi h^2 (3 R – h)}{4/3 \pi r^3}+ \frac{1/3 \pi h’^2 (3 r – h’)}{4/3 \pi R^3}\) I guess I forgot how to use LaTex. I'll have to check around, and also I'll look for the thread where I covered the details of what the equation represents, i.e. the sphere to sphere intersection and overlap of continuous spherical waves in the medium of space. Wolfram Math helped me quantify the individual spherical caps involved. I'll probably start a new "Big Wait" type thread soon to bring in my recent changes to the model as it evolves over time, and I'll be sure to include the equation. Thanks for pointing that out. (9832)
