ISU (Infinite Spongy Universe Model of Cosmology) Update 2016

[quantum_wave]

ISU (Infinite Spongy Universe Model of Cosmology) Update 2016

Just for the fun of it, I Googled, "Infinite Spongy Universe", and came up with links to many of my threads and to my ISU YouTube video, but this link is my latest claim to fame:
http://acronymsandslang.com/definition/2671525/ISU-meaning.html

The ISU acronym is "officially" listed on the Acronyms and Slang website.

I like to do an annual update of the ISU model and its associated philosophy, and finding the ISU actually mentioned by an independent website out there is just the motivation I need to get going on an update.

This linked thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/fleshing-out-wave-particle-duality-in-the-isu.152195
is probably the best reference point from which to conduct an update, since it covers both the ISU model with last years updates, and it includes some posts about the philosophy that I derive from the model.

As usual, I'm open to comments from members. I don't usually get much participation because this is a personal view of cosmology, developed from the "bottom up", using my own methodology of reasonable and responsible speculation. I start with generally accepted science and physics as departure points into speculations to address the "as yet unknowns" in current models, and so this will not be a scientific presentation. That explains why I am perfectly comfortable conducting the update in the Pseudoscience forum if it would make any members comfortable. But let's start in AltTheory.

For my first post I reference this linked post:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/fleshing-out-wave-particle-duality-in-the-isu.152195/#post-3323602

and these two points:
1) The universe has always existed and is infinite.
2) There was no beginning and no great phase transitions; the infinite and eternal universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a grand scale.

 

[quantum_wave]

...
For my first post I reference this linked post:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/fleshing-out-wave-particle-duality-in-the-isu.152195/#post-3323602

and these two points:
1) The universe has always existed and is infinite.
2) There was no beginning and no great phase transitions; the infinite and eternal universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a grand scale.

Note that those two statements are part and parcel of the Perfect Cosmological Principle:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_Cosmological_Principle
"The Perfect Cosmological Principle states that the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic in space and time. In this view the universe looks the same everywhere (on the large scale), the same as it always has and always will. It is the principle underpinning steady-state theory and emerging from Chaotic inflation theory.[1][2][3]
The Perfect Cosmological Principle is an extension of the Cosmological Principle, which asserts that the universe changes its gross feature with time, but not across space."

From that starting point, I'll depart from the previous list of speculations and hypotheses somewhat:

3) The greater universe has a landscape I call the Multiple Big Bang Arena Landscape, typified by an eternal "sameness" on a grand scale, but where each arena, like our own observable Big Bang universe, starts with a "bang" and expands rapidly (into pre-existing space).

4) That landscape is populated by a potentially infinite number of Big Bang arenas, some new and active, and some in the later stages of expansion, intersection, and overlap with each other.

 

[quantum_wave]

...
From that starting point, I'll depart from the previous list of speculations and hypotheses somewhat:

3) The greater universe has a landscape I call the Multiple Big Bang Arena Landscape, typified by an eternal "sameness" on a grand scale, but where each arena, like our own observable Big Bang universe, starts with a "bang" and expands rapidly (into pre-existing space).

4) That landscape is populated by a potentially infinite number of Big Bang arenas, some new and active, and some in the later stages of expansion, intersection, and overlap with each other.

This is a link to a post containing my YouTube video, which. covers the macro level of the greater universe, describing Big Bang arenas and Arena Action:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/my-narrated-isu-youtube-macro-overview.144682/

Watch it all of the way through, 20 minutes.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I am on a phone 25 minutes viewing will use all my credit so can you explain your view on cosmology in 25 lines of text.
Point format if possible just meaty bits if possible.
So far I interpret this.
The Universe is infinite, our bigbang observation is part of a pre existing larger Universe which enjoys "sameness through out".

How can we know past our big bang region is there any way that is more than speculation.
Sorry I cant look at your video but I would like to know more if you can deliver it "less".
Alex

 

[quantum_wave]

I am on a phone 25 minutes viewing will use all my credit so can you explain your view on cosmology in 25 lines of text.
Point format if possible just meaty bits if possible.
So far I interpret this.
The Universe is infinite, our bigbang observation is part of a pre existing larger Universe which enjoys "sameness through out".

How can we know past our big bang region is there any way that is more than speculation.
Sorry I cant look at your video but I would like to know more if you can deliver it "less".
Alex

You can read the entire text narrative from the video in the link in my last post, without pictures. Narrative for each slide starts right below the link to the video. The video is just a series of pictures (slides) that are supported by the narrative.

Most, if not all of the slides, with explanations, appear in my ISU 2015 thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/isu-2015.144153/

For a point by point look at a list of 25 speculations and hypotheses, use this link, which I posted in the OP:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/fleshing-out-wave-particle-duality-in-the-isu.152195/#post-3323602

Hope that helps get the main points to you.

Except for what is known science, as explained in the OP, it is all speculation, hypothesis, and non-scientific layman word salad, but I do keep working on it as the scientific community reaches deeper into the "as yet" unknown.

Edit: I do have a file with that same narrative, that has links to each of the pictures, but maybe your access (phone) would be bogged down with the pictures. Let me know and I could post that file.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Thanks I will have a look.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Well it is interesting but maybe not science but you seem to acknowledge that so as long as we dont get carried away all is good.
One question....
Our big bang is "growing into an existing Universe" on your approach, if I have it right that raises a question.
Would we not observe our big bang U iverse expansion slowing given that presumably would encounter resistence from the "greater pre existing Universe". That would seem reasonable.
Our current observations suggest that not only is expansion moving along at a fair clip but the rate is increasing..... or expansion is getting faster. Somehow for me I would expect, in your cosmology, to observe an expansion that is slowing... Slowing because of an exteriour resistence.
Have you considered the effect I suggest?
Alex

 

[quantum_wave]

Well it is interesting but maybe not science but you seem to acknowledge that so as long as we dont get carried away all is good.
One question....
Our big bang is "growing into an existing Universe" on your approach, if I have it right that raises a question.
Would we not observe our big bang U iverse expansion slowing given that presumably would encounter resistence from the "greater pre existing Universe". That would seem reasonable.
Our current observations suggest that not only is expansion moving along at a fair clip but the rate is increasing..... or expansion is getting faster. Somehow for me I would expect, in your cosmology, to observe an expansion that is slowing... Slowing because of an exteriour resistence.
Have you considered the effect I suggest?
Alex

I see it coming down to a matter of energy density. The energy density of our arena is extreme, and we are expanding into the remnants of two or more old aged arenas where the relative energy density is very low.

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.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

OK that could work.
Good luck with your projects.
Alex

 

[quantum_wave]

Thank you.

Your question, which I appreciate, leads to some further speculations that I make about a concept of the universal average level of energy density. There are some obvious connections between that and the Cosmological Constant part of Big Bang theory; of course Arenas and multiple Big Bang models don't enter in the current consensus discussion.

However, in a multiple Big Bang arena universe model of cosmology, a question can arise as to how many active arenas there are on an average, per some specified large standard sized multiple arena patch of space.

1) I suggest that the answer depends on the universal average wave energy density. The lower that universal density is, the fewer arenas would exist in that given sized patch of space.

2) That leads to speculation saying that, if there is in fact a lower limit to universal energy density at some point, then it is at that level where distant very aged converging arenas will no longer accelerate as they expand and converge, but will instead merge (or "smerge" to coin a word, lol). In the past I have referred to this limit-effect as the "corridor of continuity" between arenas of the macro universe. That concept could lead to a discussion of the local history of Big Bang arena action relative to other similarly sized patches of space across the greater universe.

3) The concept that there is a level reached at the low end limit of universal density, suggests that if known, it would specify a certain matter to energy ratio for the universe as well, assuming that the low limit density is too high to permit all matter to be decayed to its constituent wave energy at the same time everywhere, i.e., preventing universal energy density equalization. If there can be no total energy density equalization, then there can be no Big Rip, in my model. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Now your model has a prediction... No big rip...
That may not qualify as testable.
I try to imagine your model and I get images of a thick soup slowly bubbling away is that reasonable or I way off track.
So far your model could fit with our current model as it deals only with the evolution of the Universe whereas your model could deal with the before.
The problem is of course dealing with before seems unknowable or do you have a way of showing the before.
I dont wish to be critical but we seem to be moving away from science and move in the direction of well I am not sure but I will use the word philosophy as a placeholder.
What are your thoughts.
Alex

 

[quantum_wave]

Now your model has a prediction... No big rip...
That may not qualify as testable.

Let's face it, I am taking liberties calling it a model. Actually is it a layman level "model" by a science enthusiast/hobbyist. That doesn't qualify it as science, but it contains my speculative answers to the questions that the scientific community cannot yet answer, at least to everyone's satisfaction. Thanks for taking a look.

I try to imagine your model and I get images of a thick soup slowly bubbling away is that reasonable or I way off track.

Well, way off track, but then, who am I to say that my presentation doesn't come across to others like that.

However, if I were to address the "thick soup" impression you have, I would say that you have it backwards. Our arena, starting out with a high energy density, hot, dense ball of energy at nature's highest possible density, [call that the thickest soup] begins to "thin" in regards to density as it expands. The arenas that it is expanding into are older still and more expanded, lower density, and therefore would represent a thin soup, less dense than ours. Those arena remnants in the space we are expanding into also had parent arenas long before, and those would be our grandparent arenas, and so on, back into a lengthy heritage; a family tree of arena history.

The landscape of the greater universe has an average energy density that is far less dense than our existing arena, so the "soup" is thicker right at home, and thins as our expansion retraces out in space, into the arena remnants of our parent and grandparent arenas.

But that scenario only holds true until of local family history is interrupted; intersected by other arenas with a similar family history. Then the background energy of all of the grandparent arenas becomes replaced by the newer family members from those distant patches of space. The landscape of the greater universe is filled with arenas in various stages of "Arena Action", from expansion, intersection, overlap, crunch formation, final stages of big crunches, and collapse/bangs that initiate new expanding arenas.

Sorry, I know people have trouble envisioning scenarios like that.

So far your model could fit with our current model as it deals only with the evolution of the Universe whereas your model could deal with the before.
The problem is of course dealing with before seems unknowable or do you have a way of showing the before.

Both. First, I deal with the unknowable, which I call the "as yet" unknown, by using my methodology. Remember, the "reasonable and responsible" speculation to address the questions that the scientific community doesn't yet have generally accepted answers for.

And second, "preconditions to our Big Bang" is a good example of an unknown, or as I say, an "as yet" unknown. Some years ago I conducted some brainstorming with members here and in other science forums on the topic of preconditions, and the solution I like best is the parent arena scenario. Two spatially separated Big Bang arenas, much like ours, expanding into surrounding space, until their expansion is interrupted by intersecting with each other. Each is filled with its own set of galaxies, and those galaxies merge and mingle in the overlap space. As more galactic material is captured in the overlap, it engages in a swirling rendezvous that eventually becomes a Big Crunch at the center of gravity of the overlap space.

Remember though, that those two arenas are part of an infinite universe, and are only two of a potentially infinite number of active arenas across the arena landscape.

There are more details about the mechanics of the crunch/bang, but eventually the growing crunch reaches nature's limit of maximum energy density, and the particles within it collapse, giving up their individual spaces, resulting a huge collapse/bang which sets off the rapid expansion of the crunch's contained and compressed energy density.

So those are my speculations and hypotheses about the preconditions of our Big Bang.

I dont wish to be critical but we seem to be moving away from science and move in the direction of well I am not sure but I will use the word philosophy as a placeholder.
What are your thoughts.

True, but I never considered my model scientific; always has been layman speculation and my own preferences for scenarios and solutions to the "as yet" unknowns. Instead of calling the model philosophical, I would be good with calling it a layman's view of the universe, from which a philosophy can be derived.

In that vain, I have derived a personal philosophy from it which, like the universe in my model, has a name. The philosophy derived from the Infinite Spongy Universe model is called Eternal Intent. I have addressed it at various times in the past in my threads, here at SciForums, and in other science and philosophy forums. In the fewest words, it is about the set of invariant natural laws of the universe, of which most are as yet unknown. The philosophy includes a personal reach into the unknown, with an expectation of receiving acknowledgements form beyond the boundary of known science.

Regards, QW[/QUOTE]

 

[paddoboy]

Let's face it, I am taking liberties calling it a model. Actually is it a layman level "model" by a science enthusiast/hobbyist. That doesn't qualify it as science, but it contains my speculative answers to the questions that the scientific community cannot yet answer, at least to everyone's satisfaction. Thanks for taking a look.

I have not perused your hypothesis to any great degree quantum wave, not that that matters too much anyway...I'm a lay person also.
What I will say is at least you have the decency, fortitude, and humility to put your hypothetical in the right section, and at least your ego is not that inflated that it blinds you to your own limitations which you openly admit.
Others with severe bouts of delusions of grandeur could take a leaf out of your book and learn that the pretense they go on with in claiming that they have any answers at all, are purely a result of that sickness.
Congrats on that score.
On face value it seems presentable but I'm not sure how it does line up with all the evidence that points to the BB and an expanding universe.
Busy day for me today, so I'll comment in the days ahead.
I would like to see rpenner comment on your hypothetical proposal?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I could not express my thoughts a clearly as paddoboys post but I agree.
I certainly find it refreshing to discuss the matter with you QW as you seem to have your feet on the ground.
I like your backwards soup idea and that was the way I saw it.. Like the old negative image from the film days.
It is good to be able to speculate and not them think or claim your ideas must be held up over the developed mainstream.
I have build a couple of Universes in my time which kept my mind active but from there I was able to learn what the professionals had come up with.
In thinking about your ideas I find myself thinking about what I know about mainstream cosmology and trying to see where your idea fits or does not fit.
Happily as lay people we can speculate if we dont forget we are not scientists.
I dont think scientists have the luxury of speculation and probably best they avoid speculation.
Have a great day.
Alex

 

[quantum_wave]

... On face value it seems presentable but I'm not sure how it does line up with all the evidence that points to the BB and an expanding universe.
Busy day for me today, so I'll comment in the days ahead.
I would like to see rpenner comment on your hypothetical proposal?

Thanks for the comments. Jump in when you like.

 

[quantum_wave]

I could not express my thoughts a clearly as paddoboys post but I agree.
I certainly find it refreshing to discuss the matter with you QW as you seem to have your feet on the ground.
I like your backwards soup idea and that was the way I saw it.. Like the old negative image from the film days.
It is good to be able to speculate and not them think or claim your ideas must be held up over the developed mainstream.
I have build a couple of Universes in my time which kept my mind active but from there I was able to learn what the professionals had come up with.
In thinking about your ideas I find myself thinking about what I know about mainstream cosmology and trying to see where your idea fits or does not fit.
Happily as lay people we can speculate if we dont forget we are not scientists.
I dont think scientists have the luxury of speculation and probably best they avoid speculation.
Have a great day.
Alex

There are a lot of us old timers around, who have been through the early days of the Internet and the science forums and the associated back and forth between mainstream consensus and layman speculation. It becomes a learning process and a thinking process.

Once you have a beginning grasp of mainstream, you have an advantage in the hobby of layman cosmology, like you say, because the scientific community is not as free to publically speculate and hypothesize; much of their commentary and thought exchange stops where the consensus ends. From there they are off into papers, math, and peer reviews, while we layman trail behind.

But we layman can go forward off the grid, so to speak, with our models and philosophies, and layman level discussions about ideas that can't be proven, and can't be falsified. That discussion is great, as long as we know it isn't professional level science and philosophy. For me, it is a hobby above all else, though you might be surprised how much it plays into my day to day living because our grand universe is always front and center, whether I have my eyes open or not.

Our level of discussion keeps the more invested members like rpenner from getting too involved, though they are always welcome. Thanks for participating.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Have you any knowledge about sprites and elves by that I mean the electrical uper atmosphere disturbances.
I find them most interesting and as far as I can tell not much research going on if any as to their implications etc.
Alex

 

[quantum_wave]

Have you any knowledge about sprites and elves by that I mean the electrical uper atmosphere disturbances.
I find them most interesting and as far as I can tell not much research going on if any as to their implications etc.
Alex

Not specifically, but am open to it for discussion. My model is about energy. Everything in the universe is composed of energy. All space is filled with wave energy and has a variable level of energy density. Particles at rest act like standing waves, composed of inflowing and out flowing wave energy components. Particles in motion experience an imbalance between those two energy components, and unless their path is interrupted, they move in the direction of the highest inflowing wave energy density; that action is gravity in my model. The inflowing and out flowing wave energy is gravitational wave energy. Photons are particles that move at the speed of light, and therefore get all of their inflowing wave energy from the direction of motion. They have mass, and light is the out flowing wave energy component of the photon particle mass.

Maybe the "elves" and "spirits" you mention could part of all of that.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_(lightning)
The above is a link.
They are above clouds and could be incoming energy but I dont know.
Little problem in your last post.
Photons dont have mass that is why they are able to travel at c.
If they had mass they can not reach c.
I think that is the way Special Relativity has it.
Alex

 

[quantum_wave]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_(lightning)
The above is a link.
They are above clouds and could be incoming energy but I dont know.
Little problem in your last post.
Photons dont have mass that is why they are able to travel at c.
If they had mass they can not reach c.
I think that is the way Special Relativity has it.
Alex

Thanks for the link, They are an interesting phenomenon.

Yeah, the idea that photons have mass is not consistent with mainstream, special or general relativity. Nothing wrong with them scientifically, and they are tested and are consensus theories. However, notice that in my energy statement I also don't attribute gravity to curved spacetime. If everything is composed of wave energy, as it is in my model, then photons are too, and then there have to be lots of outlandish departures from the consensus; there are many of those in my model.

I won't bother trying to defend photon mass here and now because it is a concept that is deeply embedded in the model, and to get there, one has to get way off the grid, lol. The energy statement is a start along that path. You can say that it is wrong if you follow a different path, but that path doesn't work with the more foundational concepts that I work from and reference in the energy statement in the last post.

Let me think about that Sprite lightening from my perspective and see if I can offer some thinking on it.