The ISU 2013 (Infinite Spongy Universe cont.)

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by quantum_wave, May 1, 2013.

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

    Messages:
    6,625
    The ISU 2013 (Infinite Spongy Universe cont.)

    There are two observational evidences of a big bang that most people who look into cosmology at all will be familiar with: redshift data and the CMBR.

    I have had many detractors over time, and in every case I have listened and learned and fixed the problem to the point that I am satisfied that there are no outstanding comments that have not been addressed to my satisfaction. As one new detractor recently pointed out on my Quantifying Gravity's Mechanism thread, I've been disseminating my views about the universe, cosmology, quantum mechanics, and philosophy in hundreds of threads on half a dozen forums over the past decade. The point he missed is that they all go back to a few things I can say about those two well known observations, and then proceed logically from there; perhaps you have a problem with the fact that I am the arbiter of what is logical, lol, but the point is I always listen to criticism and address it to my satisfaction.

    Oh yeah, I have a so called model of the universe, but it is so complicated that no other human has yet grasped it; most don't even try. All I will say is that it evolves from all of the criticism, and from the improvements I make to it because of the criticism, and because I spend a lot of time pursuing my hobby of improving it on my own too.

    Anyone familiar with my threads is aware that cosmology, physics and philosophy are hobbies to me, and I don't claim to be "doing" those things, just learning and hypothesizing as I see fit. Just enjoy the far out ideas and their internal consistency, and if in the unlikely chance you find anything that is inconsistent with scientific observations and data that you think worth correcting or commenting on feel free.

    I'll start with the following and elaborate until interrupted by someone else's nonsense.

    The raw redshift data is evidence that the galaxies and galaxy groups are moving away from each other, and the CMB is evidence that all motion within our big bang arena is relative to the background.

    Those are my two perspectives, and they are not always agreed upon, but as I elaborate on what I derive from those two observations, they become a departure point from generally accepted science into the alternative views I have grown to find so fascinating. I've found that the interest in alternative ideas in all of the good old forums where I have posted has gradually wained and so if I want to jumble up any new word salad, I figure I should do it in an as out of the way place as possible, and this is that place. Maybe I will be left alone to just rant which is fine, maybe not which is fine too.

    (views=0)
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2013
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    6,625
    Separation momentum of the galaxies and galaxy groups:

    If you just consider the raw redshift data, it can be interpreted as a Doppler shift in the wavelength of light caused by the recession of distant galaxies, i.e. confirmation of the big bang event said to have occurred billions of years ago, sometimes quantified at ~14 billion years given certain theories and geometries. Simply put, the distant galaxies and galaxy groups are observed to be moving away from us in all directions if we judge their recession from us by the raw redshift data. And if we judge their distance from us based on the redshift data, the further those galaxies are from us, the faster they are receding from us.

    In my so called model of the universe, that is exactly what is going on. The galaxies and galaxy groups all formed indirectly from the wave energy density of the big bang. I say indirectly because the first particles that formed in our arena and that now make up the galaxies, all have separation momentum that was imparted to them when they formed during the early rapid expansion that followed the big bang.
    (24)
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2013
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    6,625

    The forces of gravity and energy density equalization

    Energy density equalization is the force behind the rapid expansion of the wave energy in the early big bang arena; so called inflation.
    In my so called model, immediately following the collapse of the big crunch that preceded our big bang, our infant arena was in rapid expansion caused by the force of energy density equalization taking place between the extreme high wave energy density emerging from the big crunch and the low wave energy density of the universal background surrounding the crunch.

    Particles from the galactic material of the "parent arenas" in the surrounding and pre-existing space survive during the accumulation of the crunch, but finally fail to maintain their individual particle space. That occurs due to the force of gravity; when the gravitational capacity of the crunch reaches natures maximum which I hypothesize as the critical capacity of a big crunch, the particles fail and give up their individual particle space. I say that they are "negated into their wave energy composition" during the gravitational collapse of the crunch.

    Once that occurs, the space vacated by the collapse of the crunch acts as an initial near vacuum to fuel the force of energy density equalization, setting our new arena into rapid expansion.

    The force of gravity caused the crunch to fail, and the failure of the crunch caused the force of energy density equalization to be invoked, which initiated the initial arena expansion. The crunch and bang represent the extremes of the two forces, gravity and energy density equalization, that are present in all interactions at all levels from the grand arena level right down to the quantum level.
    (55)
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2013
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. rr6 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    635
    Rain Bread Expansion

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

    Messages:
    6,625
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2013
  9. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    The cosmic microwave background temperature components

    If you consider the cosmic microwave background, and envision it as best we can without the thermal signature of galactic structure that formed after the big bang, you see a significant sameness of about 2.7K no matter which direction you look, though there are slight temperature differences that could be explained by slight inhomogeniety of the big crunch/bang event.

    In mainstream theory, the background energy is often interpreted as a thermal "echo" of the big bang. In my so called model it can be considered evidence of a preexisting universe where something close to 2.7K is a characteristic temperature of the universal background of the greater universe. Mainstream theory recognizes no outside or greater universe, so everything has to be connected to and caused by our big bang event. In my so called model our big bang event is not the only one, in fact it is only one of an infinite number of such events across an infinite and eternal universe.

    There is no doubt that the collapse and expansion of a big crunch leaves a significant heat signature in the space where the big bang event occurs, but to say that the big bang is the only contributor to the background temperature that we observe today would have to technically eliminate the idea of big bang events being common throughout a greater universe. In my model those are common events and the background temperature is the result of an infinite past of big bang arena action across the greater universe, combined with the heat signature of our own big bang.

    I'm saying that in the greater universe, let's call it the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe, there is an average temperature, and there are hot and cold patches, and in that grand scheme our arena might be relative warm compared to the deep corridors of space that exist between arenas.

    The bottom line is that in my so called model, the background temperature we observe and measure at ~2.7K as two components, neither of which we can quantify separately. One is the temperature signature of our big bang, and the other is the temperature signature of the background of a potentially eternal universe that is characterized by a big bang arena landscape.
    (94)
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2013
  10. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    For an explanation of what causes a big crunch to "bang", I have to go the quantum level of order. In my so called model, a big crunch bangs because of the quantum nature of particles:

    Quantum Mechanics in my so called model

    I have mentioned the macro realm of the ISU which I am referring to as the "big bang arena landscape of the greater universe". When I shift gears and talk about the micro realm, you might not expect to recognize anything in it from what I have said about the macro realm. Your expectations would be wrong. In quantum action there are striking similarities to the arena action.

    A simple rephrasing of what I call arena action at the macro level becomes what I call quantum action at the micro level. Quantum action features the convergence of "parent" quantum waves that expand and converge, and out of the convergences come new high density spots that in turn expand spherically.

    Quantum mechanics in my so called model is derived from that quantum action concept of expanding and converging quantum waves. Quantum action has a sameness that doesn't get differentiated into different particles, spins, charges, etc. until particles themselves are being addressed at a higher level of differentiation, i.e. at the fundamental level of the Standard Particle Model. What I am addressing with my version of quantum mechanics is the foundational nature of particles, the thing that makes them the same, not different.

    What is the same about particles with mass? Gravity's treatment of them. Gravity treats them all the same, and so my quantum musings are about what makes all particles the same and about a so called model that attempts to play up that sameness into some ideas of how quantum mechanics might be working to achieve that sameness.
    (118)
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2013
  11. rr6 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    635
    Rain Bread Expansion

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

    Messages:
    6,625
    My apologies. I'm going to go back to that thread and address that, and feel free to discuss any question with me there, or by PM or email, even if it is about something I say here.
    Not one that I have kept up to date.

    This thread is going to be the most current place to read about 2013 version of the so called model in overview fashion. I'll refer to this thread for awhile as I make changes and further updates, but I'm only getting started. Hope to see you over on the other thread where discussion will not delay the progress of completing this thread, and am certainly open to discussions by PM or email.
     
  13. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    Sameness and pinhole action

    The "sameness" is the effect of converging gravity waves where the exact point of intersection acts like a pinhole through which the two converging waves pass from opposite directions, resulting in a spherically expanding emergence of their combined wave energy density. That would make the gravity waves within a particle much smaller than the particle itself, and from that I derive the idea that particles are standing wave patterns composed of gravity wave energy in multiple quantum increments.

    That is the "sameness" concept behind the process of quantum action that establishes and maintains the presence of particles and gravity.

    Before I describe the process of quantum action I have to define a few terms here:
    Energy, wave energy, the medium of space, quanta, quantum waves, particles, standing wave patterns, inflowing and out flowing wave energy, energy density, spherical waves, internal composition of fundamental particles, gravity, etc., etc.*

    Oh, forget that. Just tell me if you need a specific definition as you follow along.

    If you take the time to understand the description of particles and gravity in my so called model you are going to be OK with the lexicon:

    Space is a medium filled with waves that each have a given energy density. The energy density of waves decrease as the waves expand. The waves expand spherically until their expansion is interrupted by converging with other expanding waves. When they converge, pinhole action occurs to produce a new spherically expanding wave that emerges from the pinhole intersection.

    Pinhole action is characteristic of all points in space, and so the medium of space has varying wave energy density at all points and the density at each point is always changing as pinhole action takes place.

    There is a minimum size of a pinhole in nature that is governed by the local wave energy density and the time delay of compression. The time delay of compression is the finite duration between when two wave densities converge, and when the spherical out flowing wave emerges. During that time there is a finite overlap of the waves that has to take place before the pinhole can produce a spherically emerging new wave. The point of intersection starts the time delay clock and the emergence of the spherical wave ends the time delay. That time delay is variable but there is a minimum and maximum in nature.
    (127)
     
  14. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    Universal ratio of matter to wave energy density in the medium of space

    One part of my so called model, mentioned long ago, but long forgotten by anyone who saw it, is that if you take a large enough patch of space, then you can make a general statement about the ratio of matter to wave energy density in that large scale space:

    There is an average wave energy density of the universe. In any large but finite volume of space encompassing at least several mature big bang arenas, that average density is too high to be equalized across all of that space in the non-quantized state. Therefore some of it must be synchronized and quantized into matter in order for all of that wave energy to fit.

    Further, in a universe that has always existed, there has always been a consistent ratio of matter relative to the total wave energy. Wave energy is conserved, and can be transitioned from non-quantized to quantized and back to non-quantized by the forces of gravity and energy density equalization, i.e. big crunches and big bangs, and their associated collapsing big crunches and expanding arenas.

    When I put together the ideas of a fixed universal ratio of matter to energy, and the two foundational forces of gravity and energy density equalization whose limits are governed by the concept of a natural critical capacity, the picture of an infinite and dynamic multiple big bang arena landscape emerges.
    (902)
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2013
  15. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    In the OP I hinted at the topic of a thread I ran in the Physics and Math forum about the observations of redshift and the cosmic microwave background. The basis for quantum gravity is there if you look and think, but the mainstream views that the CMBR is causally connected to the Big Bang is a misconception. The CMBR has two components; one is the wave energy density of the big bang, and the other is the wave energy density encompassed by the expanding big bang arena as the observed expansion of the arena advances into energy filled pre-existing space. The two sources of wave energy density have been merging since the instant of the collapse/bang. Finally, after 885 posts to date, the P&M thread has reached a focus on the topic of quantum gravity. I don't know if the thread will last much longer because there is no moderation, and because it is an Alternative Theories topic in the hard science Physics and Math forum, so I'll link to it here for furture reference.*http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...-Hubble-view&p=3090822&viewfull=1#post3090822
     
  16. rr6 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    635
    Positive Spherical Shells vs Saddle-shaped Negative Shells

    QW, thx for posting here, as it may help me to get my head around the maintain sum-total amount of finite Universe, while also having expansion and contraction.

    A finite sponge does it, why not a finite Universe?

    The key ingredient with the sponge concept, is that it has non-occupied spaces within it to begin with yet overall it is liken to any convex polyhedron or spherical.

    We can have a positively curved sponge even--- just like curved geodesic spherical --- and it will contract untill the non-occupied spaces vanish, so, this sponge may be my saving grace to my recent quandries.

    I was blocked there for awhile today and I couldn't think of any spherical shells liken that had hollow but actually any ball or is like that, it is just that the space fo the shell occupied by the ball is very small.

    So if we sure we can have tori/rings/doughnuts with non-occupied space outside the tube but with a spherical having a non-occupied hollot space that non-occupied space is not connected to the outside, whereas with a torus/ring/doughnut shape the non-occupied space outside is all connected.

    H,mmm there is maybe some kinda of cosmic significance in referencing these to fundamental topologies to our Universe and I just dont see it yet.

    For years I thought our finite Universe could not be a torus, then moved over to the idea of a multitude of tori/rings like and exxtremely complex set of pretzels as the shape of our Universe, and that way we all non-occupied space is outside the tubes yet still between the tubes ergo within a the diametic distance of the overall diameter of such pretzel Universe.

    r6
     
  17. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    This thread is a repository for 2013 changes and additions to my so called model. Here is a batch of posts and content that I will want to find later, and so I am just noting them here for futur reference:

    August look back and forward

    Post #1020 7/29/2013
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...-Hubble-view&p=3092318&viewfull=1#post3092318
    ...
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread....=1#post3091611
    About forum rules, acceptable and unacceptable posting, and straw men claiming false intolerable actions


    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread....=1#post3091648
    "Relative to the Sweet Spot"


    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread....=1#post3091882
    More about the sweet spot


    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread....=1#post3092004
    Finding the sweet spot


    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread....=1#post3092148
    To PhysBang
    "Photons" not photon and the 360 degree Monopole ~2.7K
    http://www.helsinki.fi/~lavinto/work...rzCPPP2013.pdf


    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread....=1#post3092178
    Breaking the flame cycle

    For the record: This thread is pending removal from P&M
    I am posting as if it should be in Alternative Theories

    ...

    I am posting alternative ideas, and have presented the concept of the big bang arena sweet spot. The only objection so far that was comprehensible was the straw man about WMAP and my use of the 360 degree monopole temperature of approximately 2.7K. As near as I can tell, the intention of that straw man was to claim I am ignorant of the science related to the CMB. I'm not, though my understanding is at a layman level from popular media, posted papers, Internet searches, books on my shelf or at the library, and decades of following related topics.

    To recap, while the thread was conducted as a Physics and Math thread, the topics of at rest relative to the CMB and the generalized redshift were discussed. No consensus was reached but my view is that it is theoretically possible to be at a point in space that is for talking purposes "generally" at rest to both. That can occur at any point in the observable Hubble view.

    I went on to hypothesize the presence of a gravitational sweet spot. It is based an my concept of the arena that encompasses the space that contains the matter and energy associated with the big bang. Within the arena is the content of the hypothesized big crunch that collapsed/banged to initiate the expansion that we observe today via the raw red shift data, as well as all of the matter/energy that the expanding arena has encountered and encompassed since the very instant after the big bang event.

    The sweet spot hypothesizes that there are two aspects to the gravity profile in the arena. One is that as particles form in the expanding early environment they have separation momentum imparted to them as they form. That momentum is conserved as particles clump into gas clouds, as stars form and as galaxies form. Because particles have mass and both feel and emit gravity waves from the instant that they form, the gravity profile includes the gravity waves related to their mere existence, as well as the gravity waves associated with their interactions, i.e. the two components of the gravity profile of the arena.

    In my post about "Relative to the Sweet Spot", I hypothesized that if there is a finite amount of matter/energy in the expanding big bang arena, then there is center of gravity, the same center of gravity that caused the preceding big crunch to form in the middle of the overlap space where two parent expanding arenas converged.

    The sweet spot concept was used to help distinguish between the gravity waves associated with the mere existence of an object, and the waves associated with its relative motion to all other objects. I said that if it was "at rest" in the sweet spot at the center of gravity of our arena, it would feel and emit gravity waves. And I said that it also feels and emits gravity waves associated with the fact that it is not at the sweet spot, i.e. any object not in the sweet spot emits gravity waves that are both proportional to their individual contained energy, and to their motion relative to all other objects.

    (21603 tot. views)



    Post #1041 7/30/2013
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...-Hubble-view&p=3092728&viewfull=1#post3092728
    The questions that I was asking five years ago when I came upon SciForums were what caused the Big Bang, what causes the presence of matter, and what causes gravity.

    To sum it up in a single sentence: If an apparently uncredentialled layman science enthusiast and hobbyist can stick it out in the understandably critical and argumentative science forum environment to the point that he can answer those questions for himself to his own satisfaction, and has, in the process of doing so, presented those answers in his own threads, conducted in a civil manner, containing content that he describes as his so called nonscientific, internally consistent model of his personal views of the cosmology of the universe, that is not inconsistent with the observational evidence and data of the scientific community on a layman level, he not only has answers he can understand and argue, but he has stick-to-it-iveness.

    The few along the way who have a clue as to what my answers are to those basic layman level questions, to which the final piece feel into place yesterday when I realized what observational evidence it would take to satisfy my own sensibilities, will probably be glad for me on some level without feeling I expect any agreement. The many antagonists, now and along the way, who have no clue as to what my answers are to those basic questions, and don't care, would certainly flame me even if I were to be the last one out as I close the door and shut off the lights.

    (22341)

    Post #1045 reply to Farsight
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...-Hubble-view&p=3092751&viewfull=1#post3092751
    If I may, my first question is, does your view of the cosmology have an explanation for what caused the big bang? If so, what are the mechanics of it? The answer can't be a one liner.

    The second question is what causes the presence of matter, with mechanics that are consistent with what causes a big bang, and that can't be a one liner either.

    And the third question is, what causes gravity with mechanics that are consistent with the mechanics that caused the big bang and that causes the presence of matter. It has to be a quantum answer.

    All three answers have to have mechanics that are internally consistent and not inconsistent with observations and data. Can you present that without hypothesizing about as yet undiscovered physics? I couldn't, but I'm a simple layman without any motivation to accept existing theory beyond what has observational evidence IF it isn't internally consistent. To me, GR and QM are not.

    Post #1054 to Farsight
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...-Hubble-view&p=3092817&viewfull=1#post3092817

    *Originally Posted by Farsight *

    That sounds like "turtles all the way down". That's where you explain something in terms of something you don't explain, and the end result is not useful.

    QW reply
    Lol, I know the story, and have included it in various of my threads over the years. I had to Google "Turtles all the way down quantum_wave" to find them since our thread history is gone.

    Rather than do that I'll just address it here: It is infinite regression you are referring to. If there was a big bang, what came before it, and I say two parent big bangs, and you say what came before of them, and I say it would take four, then eight ..., and so you would call that turtles all the way down back in time eternally.

    You must agree though, that you have no answer to which I can't ask, what came before that. The solution in my so called model to "turtles" as far as going back in time is concerned is that the universe has always existed; no beginning. And if you think that through and say that the exponential equation soon would have you running out of previous big bangs if there wasn't a potentially infinite amount of space and energy, you would be right. Therefore, in my so called model, the unverse is potentially infinite in time, space and energy.

    Post #1055 7/31/2013
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...-Hubble-view&p=3093041&viewfull=1#post3093041

    *Originally Posted by quantum_wave *

    ...

    I am posting alternative ideas, and have presented the concept of the big bang arena sweet spot. The only objection so far that was comprehensible was the straw man about WMAP and my use of the 360 degree monople temperature of approximately 2.7K. As near as I can tell, the intention of that straw man was to claim I am ignorant of the science related to the CMB. I'm not, though my understanding is at a layman level from popular media, posted papers, Internet searches, books on my shelf or at the library, and decades of following related topics.

    To recap, while the thread was conducted as a Physics and Math thread, the topics of at rest relative to the CMB and the generalized redshift were discussed. No consensus was reached but my view is that it is theoretically possible to be at a point in space that is for talking purposes "generally" at rest to both. That can occur at any point in the observable Hubble view.

    I went on to hypothesize the presence of a gravitational sweet spot. It is based an my concept of the arena that encompasses the space that contains the matter and energy associated with the big bang. Within the arena is the content of the hypothesized big crunch that collapsed/banged to initiate the expansion that we observe today via the raw red shift data, as well as all of the matter/energy that the expanding arena has encountered and encompassed since the very instant after the big bang event.

    The sweet spot hypothesizes that there are two aspects to the gravity profile in the arena. One is that as particles form in the expanding early environment they have separation momentum imparted to them as they form. That momentum is conserved as particles clump into gas clouds, as stars form and as galaxies form. Because particles have mass and both feel and emit gravity waves from the instant that they form, the gravity profile includes the gravity waves related to their mere existence, as well as the gravity waves associated with their interactions, i.e. the two components of the gravity profile of the arena.

    In my post about "Relative to the Sweet Spot", I hypothesized that if there is a finite amount of matter/energy in the expanding big bang arena, then there is center of gravity, the same center of gravity that caused the preceding big crunch to form in the middle of the overlap space where two parent expanding arenas converged.

    The sweet spot concept was used to help distinguish between the gravity waves associated with the mere existence of an object, and the waves associated with its relative motion to all other objects. I said that if it was "at rest" in the sweet spot at the center of gravity of our arena, it would feel and emit gravity waves. And I said that it also feels and emits gravity waves associated with the fact that it is not at the sweet spot, i.e. any object not in the sweet spot emits gravity waves that are both proportional to their individual contained energy, and to their motion relative to all other objects.

    (21603 tot. views)
    Quite typically, two or three of you ridiculed me for referring to what I called the monopole ~2.7K temperature in all directions, invoking a straw man that I am ignorant of the details of the CMB that has been revealed by some of the best known science in the popular media.

    I defended myself in the above post, and I have not seen any one man up. If there is any sincerity in the criticism, they could acknowledge that my phrasing about the background temperature monopole was very appropriate for the context.

    I'm just a layman, with a layman understanding, and am as interested as they are about the implications of what we know and are still learning from the CMB data.

    To that point, I mentioned a possible cause for the anomaly at the bipole and wide angular scales and not one of the detractors showed interest in an idea that is at the forefront of "real" science. Go figure.

    The following is from the new part of my so called model which I just posted. I know I turn you off, but does that turn off your mind?
    *Originally Posted by quantum_wave *
    Someone predicted this but I don't know who ...

    The prediction is that our sweet spot is dependent on various aspects of the sweet spots of our "parent" arenas.

    To explain, following on from my post to Grumpy, my version of events is that two big bang arenas, filled with galaxies that were moving away from each other just like what we observe today in our arena, expanded until they converged.

    The convergence began at the point in space where the two expanding galaxy filled big bang arenas first touched. That point marks the intersection between two spheres, and as the spheres continue to expand, that point is engulfed within a lens shaped overlap space that contains galaxies from both parent arenas.

    Within the lens shaped space there is a new center of gravity that forms, i.e. the center of the big crunch that preceded our big bang. The location of that center of gravity is not expected to be in the center of the lens unless by coincidence the two parent arenas are dimensionally the same and are expanding at the same rate. Some details of that event are something we have a chance to detect. The prediction is that the center of gravity around which the new big crunch accumulated is off center in the lens, which has ramifications that might be observable.

    Both parent arenas would have their own centers of gravity, and their own sweet spots. The expansion motion of their respective galaxies would help define the location of each, but alas we will never see those remnant galaxies drifting off, as Grumpy points out. But the differences in the size and rate of expansion of the two arenas that lead to our big crunch, and subsequent big bang, would determine just how off-center our center of gravity would have been in the lens.

    The new sweet spot, the center of our big bang arena, will be determined by the location of the parent arenas sweet spots, the parent arenas ages and maturity, i.e. relative density, and the parent arenas rates of expansion. It would be off center by an amount that could be generally calculated if we knew those values, but we don't.

    The remnants of the two parent arenas are still out there and aside from the effect of having perhaps half of there combined galactic material collapsed into our own big crunch, the geography of other half of their respective galaxies would show them speeding out into the greater universe away from us, completely undetectable by us as far as their light emissions.

    But though we will not see their light as such, the gravitational profile of the parent arenas has overlapped and been imprinted into our arena. The prediction is, those overlapping gravitational profiles will cause an anomaly at large angular scales in our reading of the cosmic microwave background of our visible arena.

    (21968 tot. views)
    Why wouldn't the "parent arena" preconditions of our big bang cause such an anomaly at wide angels

    http://www.helsinki.fi/~lavinto/work...rzCPPP2013.pdf
    Page 18 and 19 mention the large scale anomalies above >60 degree angle.

    If you are really a professional, do me a favor and look into that and help me understand why it isn't consistent with my "parent" arena scenario, as described in my post on the anomaly.

    (22755)

    Post #1060
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...-Hubble-view&p=3093085&viewfull=1#post3093085

    *Originally Posted by Farsight *
    No. I just don't know what caused the big bang. I have a concept of an early universe that was something like a "frozen star" black hole with no point-singularity in the middle, and no space outside it. But I don't know how that got there, or what caused it to start expanding. Like I said, I prefer to focus on the "easy" stuff like gravity and dark matter and particles etc.*

    You start with a great big lump of confined high-pressure space, then you do something so that it isn't confined any more. It somehow goes BANG, and you now have space expanding rapidly, and "ringing like a bell". It's full of waves. Light waves. Once you have this, gamma-gamma pair production creates matter in the usual fashion.*

    I can't give an answer consistent with the mechanics of the big bang, because I just don't know how it came about. However I have previously given an outline description of how I think quantum gravity generally works.*

    See above. I can't give you much. But for what it's worth, here's that description of how I think quantum gravity generally works:*

    Take a look at Einstein’s history of field theory where he says this: ”It can, however, scarcely be imagined that empty space has conditions or states of two essentially different kinds, and it is natural to suspect that this only appears to be so because the structure of the physical continuum is not completely described by the Riemannian metric”. Then take a look at the wiki derivation from electromagnetic field theory: "the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time". Then see The Role of Potentials in Electromagnetism by Percy Hammond and look at the sentence near the end-note: "We conclude that the field describes the curvature that characterizes the electromagnetic interaction".*

    So electromagnetic potential involves curvature, and field is the derivative of potential. So draw a curved-space integral of the photon's sinusoidal electromagnetic waveform, like this. The photon is where there's curvature, hence many-paths. Any cell that's a skewed instead of square is a field quantum, a virtual photon. It's spin1 because it isn't a perfect parallelogram, and you need to rotate it by 360 degrees to look the same. Then you redraw but this time for a whole lot of photons across the bottom, all overlapping one another, so much so that the curved space is gone. Keep the cell heights the same, like this. Any cell that's a rectangle rather than a square is a field quantum, a virtual graviton. It's spin2 because it looks the same when you rotate by 180 degrees. But it isn't a messenger particle literally flying around, just a field quantum, a "chunk" of a field, see Matt Strassler’s article about virtual particles. The virtual graviton is the same thing as a virtual photon, in the same field but with a different disposition. Space isn’t curved in a gravitational field, instead motion through space over time is curved, so spacetime is curved. Google on “inhomogeneous vacuum” and you’ll appreciate that this is essentially the same thing as curved spacetime.
    I'll address the rest of your previous post and this one too, but let me say first:

    My primary interest in science started with cosmology and thus my focus on origins and outcomes. Certainly, once you start to build a cosmology that is internally consistent, you have to go beyond the standard models which are at best inconsistent.

    What you are seeing in my so called model isn't criticism of the standard model, it is personal reconciliation of the incompatible models via quantum gravity. Not the quantum gravity that you have found interesting and have discussed above, but based on the cosmological opinion that the big bang had to be driven by quantum events, if in fact there is a quantum reality that underpins the macro scene.

    It is my view that you can't understand what we observe about the universe if you don't get down to the quantum action at the foundational level. If you can visualize action at that level in the medium of space, and describe the physical mechanics of those visualizations, the descriptions then lead to the math, not the other way around.

    My introductory posts to the thread Quantifying Gravity's Mechanism included a good simple equation that addresses the limits of quantum action to show when the convergence of wave energy quanta will produce a new quantum at the foundational level. Thus supporting my view that matter can and is composed of wave energy quanta in quantum increments. That same trivial equation addresses the convergence of two parent arenas by defining when the limits of matter/energy accumulation will be reached, given the accumulated value of the energy quanta in the supposed crunch that forms in the lens shaped overlap space as describe recently above. That reasoning is based in the idea that big bangs can accumulate only a certain finite amount of energy/matter before they collapse/bang.

    Not much actual discussion on the content occurred, but the off topic business lead me to have that thread moved to Alternative Theories. That thread and attempts to get a discussion on quantum mechanics as it relates to quantum action, see my "Two Swarms of Gnats" (lol) thread that got little attention. SciForums is not manned for discussions like mine, except for the ready disdain generally for alternative ideas. Until now, I have posted here as a record of where I have been and where I am going on my personal views, for my own use. The comments I get are all helpful, either in regard to the content, or to help me understand the minds of those who won't address alternative ideas.

    Your approach seems to be cognizant of that, and though my crude layman approach can be of little or no help in advancing your own well prepared positions and understanding, you have and are a help to me in inching mine along. Thanks for that.

    (22814)

    Post #1064 reply to Farsight
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...-Hubble-view&p=3093104&viewfull=1#post3093104

    *Originally Posted by Farsight *
    I don't like it at all I'm afraid. Galaxies do merge, and there are no spectacular big bangs that result.*

    QW
    A spherical big bang arena with 200 billion galaxies converging with another spherical big bang arena with 200 billion galaxies. Maybe there would be some significant pass-through in the first galaxies that engage, but gravity would soon overtake separation momentum, and they would start to turn. Once there is some swirling rendezvous going on, the continuing wave of new galaxies entering the fray would slow faster and before long, at the center of gravity in the lens shaped overlap, the beginning of an accumulation of galactic material would be taking place. Once it starts there is no stopping it. Pass through is true for two galaxies in the otherwise uninterrupted setting, but even then, if you Google colliding galaxies, the swirling effect is obvious.

    Farsight
    And if space somehow collided with space, I don't see how that would result in a newly-expanding arena at all. If one "ball of expanding space" somehow intersected with another, I can imagine that we might expect to see some inhomogeneity in one or more directions, but I cannot conceive how this would result in a new "ball of expanding space".

    QW
    Are you talking about empty space. I agree completely. The space I am talking about is filled with billions of galaxies that are composed of matter and that will have their worlds turned upside down by a convergence of the magnitude of two big bang arenas converging. Gravity has a long reach and it gets stronger and stronger as the distance closes.
    What big crunch? The galaxies in the two parent arenas would surely just go through one another rather than somehow collapsing and bouncing.
    Simulate it mentally, and consider the description above, and if you don't think there would be an interruption of momentum in such a convergence, that is fine. It means you don't consider the "parent" arena scenario viable. Reading ahead, is see you do have a particular choice of your own for what preceded the big bang, but you haven't been interested enough to put some details to how it might work. I think you would find you need new physics at the quantum level to make sense of it, but different paths, you and I.

    (22868)

    Post #1070 7/31/2013
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...-Hubble-view&p=3093182&viewfull=1#post3093182

    *Originally Posted by quantum_wave *
    ...

    Why wouldn't the "parent arena" preconditions of our big bang cause such an anomaly at wide angels

    http://www.helsinki.fi/~lavinto/work...rzCPPP2013.pdf
    Page 18 and 19 mention the large scale anomalies above >60 degree angle.

    If you are really a professional, do me a favor and look into that and help me understand why it isn't consistent with my "parent" arena scenario, as described in my post on the anomaly.

    (22755)
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.5602



    Related articles/papers:

    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/...efore-big-bang

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3706

    http://cosmocoffee.info/viewtopic.php?t=1582

    http://cosmocoffee.info/discuss/1004.2706

    Post #1086 8/1/2013
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...-Hubble-view&p=3093367&viewfull=1#post3093367

    The article expresses the view that inflationary theory says that the distribution of temperature variations across the sky should be smooth, or *isotropic also referred to as Gaussian, rather than having discernible structures within it. The anomalies are non-Gaussian and point to energy density perturbations in the earliest low entropy, high denstiy stage of the big bang arena. Regardless of the causes of the perturbations, the cosmic microwave background is nonrandom and non-Gaussian, pointing to preconditions to the big bang.

    Remember why Inflationary Theory was laid in on top of GR? It was theorized as a fix to explain how the observation of the CMB could be caused by the Big Bang, and not by preconditions.

    Agree or not, my so called model invokes preconditions and attributes the CMB to the energy density that was outside the tiny space occupied by the low entropy, high denstiy condition at the moment of the bang. The idea is that there is a greater universe that preexisted our big bang, and it is characterized by a cosmic microwave background perpetuated by a potentially infinite and eternal landscape of active big bang arenas in various stages of formation and maturity.

    That eliminates the exponential inflation which is necessary to connect the CMB to the big bang event, and eliminates the singularity as well. Those are two characteristics of the standard cosmology that cannot be falsified, but neither can it be falsified that there were preconditions, and the simple preconditions of a preexisting greater universe immediately eliminates two of the most controversial aspects of BBT, without adding any controversial aspect other than the Big Bang did not represent something from nothing. And that makes three controversial aspects of BBT that go away with my scenario.

    Hence I stand by my so called model, and the parent arena concept that would predictably cause the observed wide angle anomaly in the CMB, due to gravitational profiles of each parent arenas being imprinted on the space into which our arena is expanding, and thus imprinted in the CMB that is encountered and encompassed by our arena as it expands.
    (24108)
    $%^&^%$
    Link to post
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...-Hubble-view&p=3093410&viewfull=1#post3093410
     
  18. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,625
    You can almost say it is alive and has an intent.

    That is what I derive from my so called model of the universe called Quantum Wave Cosmology. The whole title is, "The Infinite Spongy Universe, Quantum Wave Cosmology, and the Philosophy of Eternal Intent.

    I wish I had it all written down in one place. But I don't; it exists in forum threads on the Internet and in various stages of completion in different forums. No one will want to wade through the maze of the content that began in 2001 as questions about how and why a planet can be so full of such diverse ideas that they incite seemingly unresolvable conflict and intentional destruction based on hate, at humanity's expense.

    There is a lot of contemplation and rationalization supported by fairly intense layman level research and learning into the nature of the universe, infinity, life and God.

    As for God, my conclusion is that anything that seems Supernatural has natural causes that we don't yet understand, but that the nature of the universe itself has characteristics that many human concepts of God mirror. So I say:

    "If at first there was nothing, not even God, then nothing could ever be. But just look around at the many fine things as far as the eye can see. So say with certainty one of two things it seems to make sense to proclaim; God or the Universe has always been here, and maybe they're one and the same."

    And that is it in my view. God and the universe are one and the same, and an infinite and eternal universe hosts an infinite and eternal landscape of active big bang arenas in various stages of formation and maturity. The reason I introduced this post with, "You can almost say it is alive and has an intent", is because my so called model features parent arenas spawning children, that then mature, converge, and spawn the next generation of infant big bangs which expand and mature, defeating entropy and perpetuating the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe.

    The intent that I refer to is that this perpetual landscape continually hosts the conditions for life; across such a landscape, hospitable environments for the generation and evolution of life forms are a certainty. My conclusion is that life has always existed, and emerges, flourishes, struggles to survive, and generally succumbs to natural cataclysms. My question, is it possible for a life force to be as much a part of the universe as the seeming intention of that universe to host the generation of life. If so, the universe is alive.
     

Share This Page