Where are the discussions about current problematic issues in science?

[quantum_wave]

…

There are a lot of considerations for discussion, or at least for contemplations as I am inclined to have, concerning that expanding arena environment. There is the issue of what the content is of the emerging ball of dense state energy, …

In my model, this ball of dense state energy has a huge volume relative to the BBT zero volume, infinitely dense start to the “universe”.

I speculate that the big crunch would be a number of light years across (10? A billion? :shrug at the moment before it collapses. The content before the collapse would be the final remaining stable particles in a dense gravitational wave energy “soup” occupying the local medium of space. A clock left intact would be measuring time at almost natures slowest possible rate compared to an identical clock far removed from the high wave energy density environment of the pre-collapse crunch.

The collapse itself would amount to a rapid decline in the volume of space occupied by the particles in the crunch. A certain volume of space is required for the particles in the crunch to function properly, and as the compression of gravity in the growing crunch reaches natures highest, the particles can no longer withstand the compression or retain the required space to function. They give up their individual space and the crunch collapses to until the instant that the dense state ball of energy I have been hypothesizing is realized. The particles can be said to merge and occupy the same space, but in my model I speculate that it is more of a negation of the individual particles into a single ball of wave energy at nature’s densest state; a ball of dense state energy.

How big a ball? Larger than a point, and smaller than a big crunch. For talking purposes I would be comfortable saying that the focus of the collapse, that being the ball of dense state wave energy at maximum density, would be one light year across.

The composition of the dense state ball of energy is compressed gravitational wave energy just as if all of the particles in the crunch had become one huge particle for that brief instant. The inflow of gravitational wave energy of the collapse would be the inflowing wave energy component, and the subsequent rapid expansion under the force of energy density equalization would be the spherical out flowing wave energy component.

That spherical out flow from the bounce of the collapsing crunch, as it bounces off of nature’s limit of high energy density, is the origin of a new big bang arena in my model.

No comments I presume, lol.

 

[Aqueous Id]

No, LOL.

 

[quantum_wave]

...

There are a lot of considerations for discussion, or at least for contemplations as I am inclined to have, concerning that expanding arena environment. There is the issue of what the content is of the emerging ball of dense state energy (see my last post), how a certain "critical capacity" might apply to all crunch/bangs making them finite and quite standard.

In my ISU-model, though there are an infinite number of active big bang arenas across the landscape of the greater universe, they all start with the same amount of energy, and the same physics.

The amount of energy they have to begin with is governed by a constant that I call Critical Capacity. Is isn't until "critical capacity" of a big crunch is reached that the crunch collapses and bangs into a new arena. Therefore all arenas have the same amount of wave energy when they emerge from the collapse and bounce into expansion.

I also speculate that the physics and natural laws are the same as well. They all start with the same amount of energy, they are all "spawned" in the overlap space of two or more parent arenas that have the same preconditions and history, and are surrounded by the same kind of environment as are all arenas so they expand into the same preexisting conditions.

These arenas are all essentially the same, and they are completely different from the bubble universes and Many Worlds universes of other alternative models. In my model there is only one universe, and it always has been the one and the same. The arenas are by no means independent and eternally separate. They are all common, they all have a common big bang beginning out the the convergence of common parents, they are all destined to expand until they interact to "spawn" new arenas, and their heritage is just like that, the same history over an endless past.

 

[river]

In my ISU-model, though there are an infinite number of active big bang arenas across the landscape of the greater universe, they all start with the same amount of energy, and the same physics.

The amount of energy they have to begin with is governed by a constant that I call Critical Capacity. Is isn't until "critical capacity" of a big crunch is reached that the crunch collapses and bangs into a new arena. Therefore all arenas have the same amount of wave energy when they emerge from the collapse and bounce into expansion.

I also speculate that the physics and natural laws are the same as well. They all start with the same amount of energy, they are all "spawned" in the overlap space of two or more parent arenas that have the same preconditions and history, and are surrounded by the same kind of environment as are all arenas so they expand into the same preexisting conditions.

These arenas are all essentially the same, and they are completely different from the bubble universes and Many Worlds universes of other alternative models. In my model there is only one universe, and it always has been the one and the same. The arenas are by no means independent and eternally separate. They are all common, they all have a common big bang beginning out the the convergence of common parents, they are all destined to expand until they interact to "spawn" new arenas, and their heritage is just like that, the same history over an endless past.

The problem is , is that this BB will lose energy energy over time

Any explosion is inefficient , energy is lost

So eventually the BB can no longer have the energy to , BANG , so to speak

So in the end , BB fades into nothingness

And nothingness is not possible for the future of any thing , since something will no longer exist

This not possible to me

Nothingness can NEVER produce something

 

[quantum_wave]

The problem is , is that this BB will lose energy energy over time

I suspect that you are envisioning a different BB than I am. When I said there is only one universe, did you take that to mean only one Big Bang. If so, I agree with you that a single finite big bang would lose energy over time, at least its useful energy would get used up and entropy would increase toward compete entropy.

Any explosion is inefficient , energy is lost

Maybe when you read me talking about a Big Bang being preceded by a Big Crunch, and the crunch collapses and bangs you interpret that as an explosion. Actually in my model it is not. It is a collapse/bounce that negates matter into wave energy, and the energy ball "inflates" in a process I call energy density equalization. There is no explosion, but instead the dense state energy that emerges from the collapse/bounce of a big crunch immediately and rapidly expands into to the preexisting space. I do plan to post about that in this series of posts originating with post #560. Also, starting with post #414 through #431, I give an overview of my hobby-model.

So eventually the BB can no longer have the energy to , BANG , so to speak

So in the end , BB fades into nothingness

Yes, agreed, if we have only a finite universe, or only one Bang. And let me point out I am not talking about a finite universe that bangs, collapses, bangs again and collapses again, over and over, i.e. the cyclical model. That will eventually fail to bang due to the fact that each collapse would not be 100% efficient at pulling back in all of the former energy. Entropy would win in the long run.

And nothingness is not possible for the future of any thing , since something will no longer exist

This not possible to me

Nothingness can NEVER produce something

Agreed. But since I am talking about a spatially infinite universe where big bang arenas form all over the place and always have, a potentially infinite number of them at any given point in time, and they compose the infinite landscape of the greater universe; there is never "nothing". The infinite and eternal universe in my model has always existed and has an infinite amount of space, energy, and time. That is probably different than the way you interpreted my model.

 

[Manifold1]

I suspect that you are envisioning a different BB than I am. When I said there is only one universe, did you take that to mean only one Big Bang. If so, I agree with you that a single finite big bang would lose energy over time, at least its useful energy would get used up and entropy would increase toward compete entropy.
Maybe when you read me talking about a Big Bang being preceded by a Big Crunch, and the crunch collapses and bangs you interpret that as an explosion. Actually in my model it is not. It is a collapse/bounce that negates matter into wave energy, and the energy ball "inflates" in a process I call energy density equalization. There is no explosion, but instead the dense state energy that emerges from the collapse/bounce of a big crunch immediately and rapidly expands into to the preexisting space. I do plan to post about that in this series of posts originating with post #561. Also, starting with post #414 through #431, I give an overview of my hobby-model.
Yes, agreed, if we have only a finite universe, or only one Bang. And let me point out I am not talking about a finite universe that bangs, collapses, bangs again and collapses again, over and over, i.e. the cyclical model. That will eventually fail to bang due to the fact that each collapse would not be 100% efficient at pulling back in all of the former energy. Entropy would win in the long run.

Agreed. But since I am talking about a spatially infinite universe where big bang arenas form all over the place and always have, a potentially infinite number of them at any given point in time, and they compose the infinite landscape of the greater universe; there is never "nothing". The infinite and eternal universe in my model has always existed and has an infinite amount of space, energy, and time. That is probably different than the way you interpreted my model.

You know, I doubt the universe actually has a beginning because to have a beginning, it must have a time relative to something else.

 

[quantum_wave]

You know, I doubt the universe actually has a beginning because to have a beginning, it must have a time relative to something else.

I'm not sure that is a strong argument for siding with the "always existed" explanation for the existence of the universe. The "something from nothing" explanation would simply start the clock, and then time would be relative to that event. The reason I prefer the "always existed" explanation is that "something from nothing" doesn't compute with my definition of nothing. Nothingness, by my definition, cannot yield something. To some people, "always existed" is more incredulous than "something from nothing", so go figure. I guess it boils down to a matter of personal preference.

 

[forrest noble]

I'm not sure that is a strong argument for siding with the "always existed" explanation for the existence of the universe. The "something from nothing" explanation would simply start the clock, and then time would be relative to that event. The reason I prefer the "always existed" explanation is that "something from nothing" doesn't compute with my definition of nothing. Nothingness, by my definition, cannot yield something. To some people, "always existed" is more incredulous than "something from nothing", so go figure. I guess it boils down to a matter of personal preference.

bold added

There is another choice that most people either never heard of, or have never considered. It was the original Big Bang proposal and also relates to my own model. The third choice is that time is solely defined by change. Without change time has no meaning. In the beginning there was something, not nothing. That something had the potential within it to change, such as the Big Bang entity. That first change in this entity was the beginning of time, but there never was a time when there was nothing, yet time has existed for only a certain period. There would be no such thing as before that. This first entity did not come into being and did not come from nothing; something has always existed but for a finite period.

 

[quantum_wave]

bold added

There is another choice that most people either never heard of, or have never considered. It was the original Big Bang proposal and also relates to my own model. The third choice is that time is solely defined by change. Without change time has no meaning. In the beginning there was something, not nothing. That something had the potential within it to change, such as the Big Bang entity. That first change in this entity was the beginning of time, but there never was a time when there was nothing, yet time has existed for only a certain period. There would be no such thing as before that. This first entity did not come into being and did not come from nothing; something has always existed but for a finite period.

That view is able to explain things as they are now by back tracking, calculating, and theorizing just like our current standard cosmology was evolved. It also addresses the issue of a "beginning or no beginning" which, in my opinion, any "complete" cosmology should do. I would call it a static past eternal freeze frame with an unknown cause for the first change. It could fit with BBT and it goes a step further and addresses the moment of beginning, where as BBT starts a moment after an implied beginning.

One question is, in regard to space and energy, is this a finite universe or an infinite universe?

 

[quantum_wave]

Picking up from where this series of posts originated, Post #560:

But regardless of the possible "aged universe" explanation for the observed ratio of Lithium 7 ions, the scenario of the ISU-model has other interesting aspects that tend to satisfy my personal sensibilities.

Energy density equalization, coupled with separation momentum of particles as they form, results in an arena where galaxies and galactic structure are separating. That environment encompasses a causally connected environment in an increasing volume of space. That space hosts the energy that emerged from the crunch/bang, and the matter and energy in the space surrounding the crunch/bang event, as well as the undetectable medium of space itself.

There are a lot of considerations for discussion, or at least for contemplations as I am inclined to have, concerning that expanding arena environment. There is the issue of what the content is of the emerging ball of dense state energy, how a certain "critical capacity" might apply to all crunch/bangs making them finite and quite quite standard, what the content is of the surrounding space from which the contents of the big crunch were accumulated after the parent arenas intersected and overlapped ...

This is an interesting contemplation. Arena action like I am describing is hypothetically occurring across the landscape of the greater universe, meaning that there are a potentially infinite number of such finite occurrences playing out at all times.

In each occurrence, after the two parent arenas have expanded until they have overlapped, and the big crunch has formed, collapsed, and bounced into expansion, and particles with separation momentum are about to form in the new arena, the question is, what is left of the parent arenas surrounding the new arena, and what is the content of the medium of space into which the new arena is expanding?

I will be glad to describe it as I envision it, but letting you do the envisioning, if you are inclined to, might be better for discussion purposes. Call it your own hypothesis, and let's compare.

 

[quantum_wave]

While you contemplate your view of what is left of the parent arenas surrounding the new arena, and what is the content of the medium of space into which the new arena is expanding, let me address why I say it is a most interesting contemplation.

The thing that sets this one contemplation apart from most is that it addresses a central premise of my model. That central premise is that our universe is an infinite multiple big bang arena universe. It hypothesizes that an infinite number of finite big bangs are occurring at any given time, expanding, intersecting, interacting, and causing new big bangs, and that action has been occurring eternally over the past, and will in the future, across the infinite landscape of the greater universe.

Further, this contemplation expresses the position that the theory of our universe as one finite Big Bang universe is not supported by the nature of the Higgs that was discovered. That theory is characterized by supersymmetry, and a stable Higgs boson. The Higgs that supports supersymmetry would be only 120 GeV, and what has been found is that the Higgs may be to heavy to support supersymmetry. The heavier Higgs particle is unstable and doesn't fit with the beautiful balance of supersymmetry according to the documentary, "Particle Fever", which is now streaming on Netflix, by the way.

And that heavier Higgs opens the door to what theorists call a multiverse, based on an unstable Higgs particle.

To clarify, the infinite multiple big bang universe of my model is different from what many theorists call a multiverse. The distinction is that the multiverse predicts different separate universes and multiple additional dimensions where the physics in each can be completely different, and where there might be "leaks" where forces seep in and between universes. Such things can never be examined from our own universe, and so we can never know much about the multiverse as a whole because information and knowledge of the other universes is unattainable.

That is what makes my model unique. It is a multiple big bang universe, not a multiverse in the same way current theorists define the multiverse. In my model the physics in each big bang arena are the same, and they readily interact and overlap with each other. The restraints to gaining knowledge about the vast infinite universe are time and distance, not multiple additional dimensions and unconnected and unpredictable universes.

I didn't get to how I envision what is left of the parent arenas surrounding the new arena, and what is the content of the medium of space into which the new arena is expanding, so there is still time if you want to jump in with how you would envision such a scenario.

 

[quantum_wave]

...
To clarify, the infinite multiple big bang universe of my model is different from what many theorists call a multiverse. The distinction is that the multiverse predicts different separate universes and multiple additional dimensions where the physics in each can be completely different, and where there might be "leaks" where forces seep in and between universes. Such things can never be examined from our own universe, and so we can never know much about the multiverse as a whole because information and knowledge of the other universes is unattainable.

That is what makes my model unique. It is a multiple big bang universe, not a multiverse in the same way current theorists define the multiverse. In my model the physics in each big bang arena are the same, and they readily interact and overlap with each other. The restraints to gaining knowledge about the vast infinite universe are time and distance, not multiple additional dimensions and unconnected and unpredictable universes.

...

I want to mention that the restraints of time and distance do not keep us from gaining knowledge about the nature of the whole universe in my model like they do in the other multiverse models. There is an infinite sameness across the infinite landscapce and has been throughout all time. Each arena has essentially the same history, energy, composition, and phases of maturity. That makes the universe homogeneous and isotropic, and in my model, the Perfect Cosmological Principle applies.

 

[quantum_wave]

...

Further, this contemplation expresses the position that the theory of our universe as one finite Big Bang universe is not supported by the nature of the Higgs that was discovered. That theory is characterized by supersymmetry, and a stable Higgs boson. The Higgs that supports supersymmetry would be only 120 GeV, and what has been found is that the Higgs may be to heavy to support supersymmetry. The heavier Higgs particle is unstable and doesn't fit with the beautiful balance of supersymmetry according to the documentary, "Particle Fever", which is now streaming on Netflix, by the way.

And that heavier Higgs opens the door to what theorists call a multiverse, based on an unstable Higgs particle.



...

9/7/2014 - As the UK's Sunday Times reports, [Stephen] Hawking is worried about the God particle. This, discovered by physicists during experiments within CERN's Large Hadron Collider, is a vital ingredient to explaining why things in our world have mass.

However, in a preface to a new book called "Starmus" -- a collection of lectures gives by famous scientists and astronomers -- Hawking worried that the Higgs Boson might become unstable.

He wrote: "The Higgs potential has the worrisome feature that it might become metastable at energies above 100bn gigaelectronvolts (GeV)."

What might this lead to? Hawkins explained: "This could mean that the universe could undergo catastrophic vacuum decay, with a bubble of the true vacuum expanding at the speed of light. This could happen at any time and we wouldn't see it coming."

 

[forrest noble]

That view is able to explain things as they are now by back tracking, calculating, and theorizing just like our current standard cosmology was evolved. It also addresses the issue of a "beginning or no beginning" which, in my opinion, any "complete" cosmology should do. I would call it a static past eternal freeze frame with an unknown cause for the first change. It could fit with BBT and it goes a step further and addresses the moment of beginning, where as BBT starts a moment after an implied beginning.

One question is, in regard to space and energy, is this a finite universe or an infinite universe?

Sorry I missed this posting.

In my model it is a finite universe in every respect, no multi-verses either. Nothing can be infinite in my model. Infinity is just a valuable concept. Everything accordingly is very simple. Space is defined as the volume which matter and the Zero Point Field (an aether) occupies and encompasses. Space would have no other meaning to it. Time would solely be an interval of change and nothing more. Energy would be the relative motion of something that exists. It could also be defined as a potential such as potential energy. But the extent of its existence would always be finite in my model.

How about your model?

 

[quantum_wave]

Sorry I missed this posting.

In my model it is a finite universe in every respect, no multi-verses either. Nothing can be infinite in my model. Infinity is just a valuable concept. Everything accordingly is very simple. Space is defined as the volume which matter and the Zero Point Field (an aether) occupies and encompasses. Space would have no other meaning to it. Time would solely be an interval of change and nothing more. Energy would be the relative motion of something that exists. It could also be defined as a potential such as potential energy. But the extent of its existence would always be finite in my model.

I like the clean sleek lines of your model . There are many points that deal with the known cosmological issues and you have dealt with each of them in a way that makes for a more complete explanation of what we observe. I only scanned the book, so I still need to get back to it, but your post will help.

How about your model?

I ran a thread for a few days over at Cosmoquest in the ATM forum, but in a tiny rude exchange with one member I got an infraction for saying he made a false accusation, and then responded with my own accusation. Seeing how anti-layman-model they are in that forum, which is common everywhere, I decided to have the thread closed instead of racking up more infractions.

The off-shoot is that I am considering changing the way I refer to it. I used to call it my "so called model", and have been calling it my hobby-model lately, and in that thread I called it my model/scenario. When the seriously science minded members are asked to comment, they always encourage me to try to formalize it, quantify the ideas so that they can be properly evaluated and compared, and they keep calling it a theory, in spite of me saying it is ideas, speculations, and hypotheses.

Maybe by sticking with the fact that it is a layman science enthusiast's personal view of cosmology, and not a model in the sense that it is, or ever will be formalized, quantified, and footnoted, is appropriate in my case. If I ever get motived, I will write it up like you have yours. Mine might be best presented as a narrative about the scenario, with the proper disclaimers and stipulations to acknowledge that it isn't the kind of material to make into a scientific paper or for peer review.

I do it for my own satisfaction of having an internally consistent view of cosmology that is not inconsistent with scientific observations. It really is a hobby that never ends or runs out of new material. I don't try to make people think I have ideas that aren't already being considered by real scientists in the general course of speculating and hypothesizing that goes on in the scientific community, except maybe I put them together in my own unique fashion. I simply keep evolving it as I learn. Comparing it to models like yours gives me new insights.

 

[forrest noble]

I like the clean sleek lines of your model . There are many points that deal with the known cosmological issues and you have dealt with each of them in a way that makes for a more complete explanation of what we observe. I only scanned the book, so I still need to get back to it, but your post will help.

I ran a thread for a few days over at Cosmoquest in the ATM forum, but in a tiny rude exchange with one member I got an infraction for saying he made a false accusation, and then responded with my own accusation. Seeing how anti-layman-model they are in that forum, which is common everywhere, I decided to have the thread closed instead of racking up more infractions.

The off-shoot is that I am considering changing the way I refer to it. I used to call it my "so called model", and have been calling it my hobby-model lately, and in that thread I called it my model/scenario. When the seriously science minded members are asked to comment, they always encourage me to try to formalize it, quantify the ideas so that they can be properly evaluated and compared, and they keep calling it a theory, in spite of me saying it is ideas, speculations, and hypotheses.

Maybe by sticking with the fact that it is a layman science enthusiast's personal view of cosmology, and not a model in the sense that it is, or ever will be formalized, quantified, and footnoted, is appropriate in my case. If I ever get motived, I will write it up like you have yours. Mine might be best presented as a narrative about the scenario, with the proper disclaimers and stipulations to acknowledge that it isn't the kind of material to make into a scientific paper or for peer review.

I do it for my own satisfaction of having an internally consistent view of cosmology that is not inconsistent with scientific observations. It really is a hobby that never ends or runs out of new material. I don't try to make people think I have ideas that aren't already being considered by real scientists in the general course of speculating and hypothesizing that goes on in the scientific community, except maybe I put them together in my own unique fashion. I simply keep evolving it as I learn. Comparing it to models like yours gives me new insights.

I appreciate the humble way you describe your model. My book editor always tries to soften the words of my book and science papers by saying "more flies are caught with honey than with vinegar." As to Cosmoquest, I had many great threads there but was finally banned for trying to explain how redshifts of galaxies are measured, not my theory of it, but the mainstream explanation that every astronomer would understand. But the moderators there did not understand it and gave me a 7 point infraction for giving the correct explanation. There are a number of sophisticated members in that forum, but only a very few that would seriously consider any possibilities contrary to mainstream proposals. They used to allow scientific papers that were peer reviewed from mainstream journals, but later disallowed some that were contrary to mainstream ideas, relegating their discussion to more speculative forums such as "against the mainstream."

The overall forum Cosmoquest never has been a good place for general discussions of new ideas in physics and cosmology, in any forum. I think moderators there interfere far to often, and often for the wrong reasons. Here in this sub-forum, on the other hand, new ideas are encouraged and freely exchanged. Hecklers can be ignored. Cool!

 

[quantum_wave]

I appreciate the humble way you describe your model. My book editor always tries to soften the words of my book and science papers by saying "more flies are caught with honey than with vinegar."
...

...
Here in this sub-forum, on the other hand, new ideas are encouraged and freely exchanged. Hecklers can be ignored. Cool!

Cosmology professionals don't hang here often, and so it is extremely rare to get meaningful input from anyone.

I have been considering your post, and am going to respond. I won't expect you to respond in great detail, but I'd like you put something on it into my thread:

In my model it is a finite universe in every respect, no multi-verses either. Nothing can be infinite in my model. Infinity is just a valuable concept. Everything accordingly is very simple. Space is defined as the volume which matter and the Zero Point Field (an aether) occupies and encompasses. Space would have no other meaning to it. Time would solely be an interval of change and nothing more. Energy would be the relative motion of something that exists. It could also be defined as a potential such as potential energy. But the extent of its existence would always be finite in my model.

... and since learning and evolving my hobby is involved, I will start with the following response:

1) In my model it is a finite universe in every respect,

You mention respect, and I respect that. I don't like not including the infinities, but I respect it. "Infinite" is important in my model for various reasons, not the least of which are boundary problems, and infinite regress.

Infinite regress speaks for itself. Any beginning of time, energy, space, or in the case of your model, first motion of a past eternal potential, leaves me asking what caused it?

I say boundary problems too, because from the start here at Sciforums (and everywhere else too), when I ask what caused the Big Bang, I was told it was a question we could never know the answer to, and there isn't any speculation or hypothesis that can be tested. When I asked about possible preconditions, of course the question is nonsense in the mainstream model because there was no time or space or energy until the event occurred, and the occurrence of the event isn't even a part of the model.

So the boundary in any cosmology of the universe that has a beginning and starts out finite seems to be destined to be finite forever. OK, fine, but ... if you believe that observations of accelerating expansion are evidence that the universe seems to be destined to expand forever (and I know you don't believe that), then entropy will trend toward completion and eventually no life can exist. General Relativity agrees. And yet here we are in that tiny window of time that allows life to exist, however briefly.

You have done some work that I skimmed on your website that disputes dark energy, and I have't examined it enough to evaluate it. Do you want to give me the layman version of a general summary, in a nutshell, that will help me get it?

 

[forrest noble]

Cosmology professionals don't hang here often, and so it is extremely rare to get meaningful input from anyone.

I have been considering your post, and am going to respond. I won't expect you to respond in great detail, but I'd like you put something on it into my thread:
... and since learning and evolving my hobby is involved, I will start with the following response:

You mention respect, and I respect that. I don't like not including the infinities, but I respect it. "Infinite" is important in my model for various reasons, not the least of which are boundary problems, and infinite regress.

I agree that an infinite universe would explain many cosmological problems, but in my view much of the misunderstandings of reality concerns wrong definitions which can cause misunderstandings of fundamental concepts such as space, time, and energy. Boundary problems, for instance, can be readily understood if nothing, not even space, can exist beyond the boundaries of matter and field. Not only nothing can exist, such existence could have no possible meaning to it that does not create theoretical problems. For example, what would be the meaning of totally empty space outside the bounds of the physical universe? IMO there could be no meaning or existence to it at all. The problem would be an improper definition and understanding of space. A beginning for time can easily be understood IMO if the only meaning of time is change. The first change accordingly was the beginning of time. There could be no change or time before the first change. I think that simple understanding of reality can only result from the simplest of definitions, whereby complications to these definitions are almost the entire problem with understandings. In my model all of reality can be easily understood without exception

Infinite regress speaks for itself. Any beginning of time, energy, space, or in the case of your model, first motion of a past eternal potential, leaves me asking what caused it?

You might consider this. It is logically impossible for a beginning of the universe to have had a cause. Why? If it did have a cause it would not be the beginning. If each cause had a cause before that then the universe(s) would be infinite. If so, by definition, infinity could have no cause. So it is totally illogical for any ultimate beginning of reality to have had a cause. A cycle of multiverses, for instance, would be an infinite universe model without possible cause.

I say boundary problems too, because from the start here at Sciforums (and everywhere else too), when I ask what caused the Big Bang, I was told it was a question we could never know the answer to, and there isn't any speculation or hypothesis that can be tested.

Of course the answer to this is also simple, the Big Bang model is entirely wrong in every respect IMO

When I asked about possible preconditions, of course the question is nonsense in the mainstream model because there was no time or space or energy until the event occurred, and the occurrence of the event isn't even a part of the model.

If there was a Big Bang, there could have been a before to it, but if so it would be a cyclical or infinite universe without possible cause.

So the boundary in any cosmology of the universe that has a beginning and starts out finite seems to be destined to be finite forever. OK, fine, but ... if you believe that observations of accelerating expansion are evidence that the universe seems to be destined to expand forever (and I know you don't believe that), then entropy will trend toward completion and eventually no life can exist. General Relativity agrees. And yet here we are in that tiny window of time that allows life to exist, however briefly.

In my model both dark energy and dark matter do not exist and are solely the result of the wrong models of reality, resulting in wrong equations. The universe accordingly is not expanding at all, let alone accelerated expansion. In my model reality for all times has been "simple" and uncomplicated. Entropy is also accordingly the wrong application of thermodynamics. In a system where heat is continuously being created by the creation of new stars and galaxies, entropy would not apply. As far as the entire Big Bang model, thermodynamics would not apply. Here is the link to that explanation. Since my model is a type of steady-state model, life could have existed in some part of the universe for hundreds of billions of years since all past periods of time within the observable universe would have been conducive to life.

http://altcosmology.com/Home.php

You have done some work that I skimmed on your website that disputes dark energy, and I haven't examined it enough to evaluate it. Do you want to give me the layman version of a general summary, in a nutshell, that will help me get it?

below is the link to our technical paper regarding the non-existence of dark energy published last February. Below that is the link to the related press release.

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/32603/19463
http://www.send2press.com/newswire/...robably-Does-Not-Exist_2014-03-0307-001.shtml

The short version of "no dark energy" is that the universe is not expanding at all. The Hubble distance formula was derived from the Special theory of Relativity concerning what they believed to be an expanding universe. If the universe is not expanding, there being a different cause/reason for the observed redshift of galaxies, then the Big Bang model and the Hubble distance formula would be wrong. The reason why this has not been discovered by the mainstream as yet is because distances up to about 6 billion light years away are not off by more than about 10%. This realization that distances are farther away than the Hubble formula calculates was the basis for the dark energy proposal in the first place. After that the Hubble formula calculates distances and brightnesses with a great deal of error, by many factors at the greatest distances. After recalculating the Hubble formula based upon my own cosmology I came up with a very different formula. When that formula is applied to type 1a supernova data as well as galaxies, distances and brightnesses come out the way they are supposed to indicating dark energy is just an error of formulation based upon the wrong model of cosmology.

Accordingly the same problem exists for dark matter, where in that case the application of the galaxy rotation curve formula, rather than the formula itself, is being "improperly" applied. When properly applied and calculated with the existing Newtonian formula, the galaxy rotation curves are easily calculated and matched by observations, and dark matter accordingly does not exist. If there was no Big Bang then the Inflation hypothesis would also be wrong, and even could have no meaning to it since entirely an ad hoc hypothesis to try to explain known problems with the Big Bang model.

 

[quantum_wave]

I agree that an infinite universe would explain many cosmological problems, but in my view much of the misunderstandings of reality concerns wrong definitions which can cause misunderstandings of fundamental concepts such as space, time, and energy. Boundary problems, for instance, can be readily understood if nothing, not even space, can exist beyond the boundaries of matter and field. Not only nothing can exist, such existence could have no possible meaning to it that does not create theoretical problems. For example, what would be the meaning of totally empty space outside the bounds of the physical universe? IMO there could be no meaning or existence to it at all.

I agree that getting the meanings of words the same between two different discussion participants would eliminate much of the misunderstanding.

To address one point, the question you just posed is a good start. You ask what the meaning of totally empty space outside the bounds of the physical universe would be. In your model it would be meaningless because of how you define what constitutes the finite universe. In my model, empty space (there isn't any, but if there was ) outside of a finite big bang arena would be the waveless aether medium of space, which equates to a vacuum in my model. Because everything physical in my model is composed of wave energy with inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave components, the finite universe would expand into the vacuum until the energy density of the vacuum was equalized with the energy density of the finite expanding arena. (Which would be never, hence the universe would expand forever.)

Wednesday evening is my regular "Quantum Coffee" session with a science enthusiast friend, and finishing my response to your last post is a topic on the agenda. I usually come out of those discussions better able to articulate my thoughts .

 

[quantum_wave]

...
Wednesday evening is my regular "Quantum Coffee" session with a science enthusiast friend, and finishing my response to your last post is a topic on the agenda. I usually come out of those discussions better able to articulate my thoughts .

We talked about the explanations for the existence of the universe and a finite vs. an infinite universe. Infinity of space, time, and energy, the three Infinities as I call them, is perhaps as difficult of a concept as I have in my model. We don't learn about infinite physical things in our normal experience. And in my model they are premises, because they are necessary for a universe to always host life.

I understand that life might be just a brief passing phenomenon in the universe, and the only support I have for it being more than that is the, "but here we are" evidence, as I mentioned above. Given all of the time that the universe has had, and with no reason to expect a physical end of the universe and time, unless the universe has an entropy defeating mechanism, the brief presence of life in the universe will become more and more infinitesimal relative to the continually increasing duration of the universe.

My model is based on the premise that the odds of us finding ourselves in that infinitesimal duration of hospitality to life are lower than the probability that the universe has an entropy defeating mechanism. So I hypothesisze Arena Action which is the process by which entropy is defeated in my model.