Cosmological Model of The Universe

[pywakit]

Sorry. Been swamped at work. Our fiscal year ends Friday. And I won't have any time until probably Monday or Tuesday night. I will try to provided reasonable answers to your questions then.

In the meantime QW ... if you wouldn't mind, please take a moment to review the material at this link.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1002/1002.4278v3.pdf

I suggested several years ago that rather than some mysterious force ... dark energy ... acting upon space, a more reasonable hypothesis might be that space itself, with it's inherent energy (which we do know about) was working to spread the matter/energy apart, trying to "smooth out the gravitational wrinkles".

I sent my model to both Frampton and Smoot proposing this alternative to the dark energy hypothesis. I have no idea if they read it, as they never responded, but around a year later they published the above paper ... which theorizes essentially the same thing.

From the paper ...

Conclusions

We have proposed a theory underlying the accelerated expansion of the universe based on
entropy and entropic force. This approach, while admittedly heuristic, provides a physical
understanding of the acceleration phenomenon which was lacking in the description as dark
energy. The evidence and general arguments supporting our hypothesis were presented
in xIII. In addition we considered an interesting phenomenological model, loosely based on
surface terms in xIV, and showed the models are capable of providing a good fit to the
supernova data.

Following the above arguments to their logical conclusion, the accelerated expansion rate
is the inevitable consequence of the entropy associated with the holographic information
storage on a surface screen placed at the horizon of the universe. An interesting question
is: how does this entropic viewpoint of cosmic acceleration impact on inflationary theory?


By the way, I checked in on Frampton and Smoot the other night (while I was putting together my responses to your questions) to see if there were any follow up papers. Astonished to find Frampton under house arrest in Argentina after being convicted of having 2 kilos of cocaine in his bags ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...gling-charges-is-naive-fool-says-ex-wife.html

Perhaps this is old news to you ...

In any case, the above science paper is relevant to your questions.

 

[quantum_wave]

Thanks pywakit, it is an interesting paper. First, can you give me a numerical value in K to equation (6), i.e. is it some tiny fraction of one degree or what?

My first glance is that the paper describes acceleration of the addition of space between the galaxies is something like a universal cooling effect caused by the cold horizon relative to the contents within the horizon. The warmer universe isn't pusing as in the mysterious force of dark energy, but instead, the colder horizon is pulling us out into it.

It is interesting how that theory corresponds with my understanding of current theory in that the CMB will continue to come from all directions and will cool over time. The rate that the earliest galaxies are receding from us is faster than the speed of light and so the CMB will never stop coming, it will just be coming cooler.

But all the good and generally accepted theories around which the current consensus forms still insist on space stretching, and so you have answered my question in that sense. I have built my delusions on space being simply three dimensional and everything that fills it is governed by invariant natural laws in a universe that corresponds to the principle that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a grand scale both spatially and temporally; known as the Perfect Cosmological Principle.

 

[origin]

I looked a few of your ideas and they do not seem very viable at all. I think quantum wave thinks they are good - which is a big indicator against their viability. No offense intended QW but it is, I think, an accurate statement.

:

1. Assuming the validity of quantum mechanics, black holes are physical, 3-dimensional objects. There is no logical or rational reason to believe they are zero-point, zero-dimensional singularities.

Except for General Relativity.

2. Newton's gravity and Einstein's relativity dictate that black holes accrete matter/energy indefinitely. There is no longer any credible evidence to believe they are limited in any way. Galaxies will merge. Orbits will eventually decay. Although there will be galactic escapees, these phenomena are but a temporary respite. Hawking Radiation, if confirmed, will not affect this is any material way, as accretion rates, even if not visibly feeding, will invariably out-pace evaporation. Space has inherent energy, and black holes collapse and 'eat' space continually. The same eventual fate awaits any and all m/e temporarily escaping black holes through gamma rays or other radiant outflows.

Not supported by evidence.

3. Black holes are not anchored in place, other than being temporarily tidally locked at the center of galaxies, and therefore, once all nearby available m/e has been consumed, including all material in orbit, the black holes will seek out new sources of gravity, subject to and only initially delayed by inertial momentum.

Balck holes will not 'seek out' a new sorce of gravity.

4. All matter that was released from the Big Bang remains in gravitational communication regardless as to how tenuous, therefore Newtonian law requires that black holes will eventually chase down all matter irrespective of the accelerating recession. As black holes consume and consolidate matter, they become less and less gravitationally 'confused'. They are essentially pulled in fewer and fewer concurrent directions even as their individual angular gravitational attractions increase.

Not supported by the evidence - and absurd.

5. Current research indicates that black hole rotational spin generally increases with mass. Schwarzschild black holes are still a purely mathematical construct and have yet to be confirmed to exist, and while the rotation rate may or may not eventually exceed c, it is not unreasonable to presume the surface matter of rotating supermassive black holes, irrespective of the physical state of the matter, must be rotating past a fixed point in space at many multiples of c.

A black holes rotation cannot exceed c.

6. As black holes eventually gain mass far in excess of trillions and quadrillions of solar masses the strain on space increases (gravitationally induced ripple effect), collapsing and drawing in ever increasing volumes of space and all m/e contained within.

Completely made up idea, not supported by evidence.

7. Eventually, as our visible/local universe nears the end of it's life cycle, only a few black holes remain, containing nearly all the mass of the Hubble volume, including the remnant left over from the Big Bang.

Not supported by evidence.

8. Regardless of the immense distance separating the last black holes, they will eventually find each other, and this final merging triggers a major contraction of surrounding space, dragging all remaining m/e released from the Big Bang back to the single merged black hole ... down to the last escaping photon and (theorized) graviton.

Not supported by evidence.

9. This sudden collapse of space, in addition to the accumulated spin is sufficient to increase the rotational velocity of the black hole to the point where centrifugal force at the equator finally exceeds the gravitational attraction, briefly releasing a portion of it's mass before conservation of angular momentum slows the rotation below the threshold.

gibberish.

 

[pywakit]

Thanks pywakit, it is an interesting paper. First, can you give me a numerical value in K to equation (6), i.e. is it some tiny fraction of one degree or what?

No idea. Why would you ask, knowing I am not a mathematician?

QW, I read in English. Please note that in the summary no math is involved. Smoot and Frampton are (or were) considered highly respected in their fields.

I assume their math was carefully checked.

I rely on observationally proven elements of GR for the model too. Can't do the math. Should I ignore it?

My first glance is that the paper describes acceleration of the addition of space between the galaxies is something like a universal cooling effect caused by the cold horizon relative to the contents within the horizon. The warmer universe isn't pusing as in the mysterious force of dark energy, but instead, the colder horizon is pulling us out into it.

Well, the important (to me) thing I pull from this paper is that (as I hypothesize in my model) space itself is not actually expanding.

I suggest that space uses it's inherent energy to smooth everything out. I do not offer a specific physical mechanism.

They have theorized a mechanism.

It is interesting how that theory corresponds with my understanding of current theory in that the CMB will continue to come from all directions and will cool over time. The rate that the earliest galaxies are receding from us is faster than the speed of light and so the CMB will never stop coming, it will just be coming cooler.

Ok.

But all the good and generally accepted theories around which the current consensus forms still insist on space stretching, and so you have answered my question in that sense. I have built my delusions on space being simply three dimensional and everything that fills it is governed by invariant natural laws in a universe that corresponds to the principle that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a grand scale both spatially and temporally; known as the Perfect Cosmological Principle.

Yes. I have been trying to refresh myself on your model.

But I have problems with the overlapping arenas. Perhaps we will find evidence of this, but at the moment, it seems if this has been going on for some time (eternity?) then we would already have detected extreme red shift photons. Or some other exotic, to date unexplainable phenomena in the CMB or in other experiments or observations.

 

[quantum_wave]

Well, the important (to me) thing I pull from this paper is that (as I hypothesize in my model) space itself is not actually expanding.

I suggest that space uses it's inherent energy to smooth everything out. I do not offer a specific physical mechanism.

They have theorized a mechanism.

Well, we agree on the possibility that space might not be stretching, but when you say, "They have theorized a mechanism", who is "they"? Are you talking about general relativity? I don't think they have a theorized mechanism which implies mechanics. The equations don't say how it works mechanically, just mathematically.

Yes. I have been trying to refresh myself on your model.

But I have problems with the overlapping arenas. Perhaps we will find evidence of this, but at the moment, it seems if this has been going on for some time (eternity?) then we would already have detected extreme red shift photons. Or some other exotic, to date unexplainable phenomena.

OH gee, I don't mean to make this about my thread, but just to say, the CMB is extreme red shifted photons, and I hypothesize that the CMB comes form outside the big bang arena, redshifted to a blurr of microwave energy from the light sources that existed within the parent arenas that overlap. Oops, no more of that here though.

Thanks for comming back and I hope the closing went well at work.

 

[pywakit]

My original points in blue, followed by your responses and my rebuttals.

I looked a few of your ideas and they do not seem very viable at all.

Thank you for offering your opinion.

I think quantum wave thinks they are good - which is a big indicator against their viability.

I think you mischaracterize QWs thinking. On the contrary, it would seem he finds little to like about my model. I would direct your attention to the fact that he has proposed and promoted a cosmological model of his own which does not conform in any significant manner with mine. Just sayin'.

No offense intended QW but it is, I think, an accurate statement.

I don't think you especially care if you offend QW. Just an observation based on reading several of your posts.

Can't seem to figure out how to post this with my prior quotes included, so I am forced to paste each one. Tedious.

"1. Assuming the validity of quantum mechanics, black holes are physical, 3-dimensional objects. There is no logical or rational reason to believe they are zero-point, zero-dimensional singularities."

Except for General Relativity.

To my understanding, it is generally accepted that GR breaks down at the 'very small'. Further, there is no observational or experimental evidence of the existence of zero-dimensional singularities. Again, to my understanding. However, there is some evidence that all matter occupies volume, according to QM. Please correct me if my facts are in error.

"2. Newton's gravity and Einstein's relativity dictate that black holes accrete matter/energy indefinitely. There is no longer any credible evidence to believe they are limited in any way. Galaxies will merge. Orbits will eventually decay. Although there will be galactic escapees, these phenomena are but a temporary respite. Hawking Radiation, if confirmed, will not affect this is any material way, as accretion rates, even if not visibly feeding, will invariably out-pace evaporation. Space has inherent energy, and black holes collapse and 'eat' space continually. The same eventual fate awaits any and all m/e temporarily escaping black holes through gamma rays or other radiant outflows."

Not supported by evidence.

Well, origin, I don't think you read any of the supporting science papers and articles for which I provided links.

You have evidence that black holes stop feeding? Don't merge? Orbits don't decay? That Hawking radiation outpaces accretion rates? Black holes don't collapse space?

If you do, then please share. It would be nice to know if my model is falsified on any of the above statements.

"3. Black holes are not anchored in place, other than being temporarily tidally locked at the center of galaxies, and therefore, once all nearby available m/e has been consumed, including all material in orbit, the black holes will seek out new sources of gravity, subject to and only initially delayed by inertial momentum."

Balck holes will not 'seek out' a new sorce of gravity.

'New' is not an accurate term. My apology. I mean the strongest remaining gravitional field. This assumes that everything that came out of the Big Bang remains in gravitational communication, no matter how tenuous. If you have evidence that gravitational bonds do not exist, or that they can be broken, or that gravity did not exist at the moment of the Big Bang, then my model falls apart.

I understand that 'conventional wisdom' is that gravity came into existence ... along with EM, and the strong and weak nuclear forces ... some time after the BB. Yet there is no actual experimental or observational evidence of this. It is an assumption based on generally accepted theory regarding the state of matter shortly after the BB.

"4. All matter that was released from the Big Bang remains in gravitational communication regardless as to how tenuous, therefore Newtonian law requires that black holes will eventually chase down all matter irrespective of the accelerating recession. As black holes consume and consolidate matter, they become less and less gravitationally 'confused'. They are essentially pulled in fewer and fewer concurrent directions even as their individual angular gravitational attractions increase."

Not supported by the evidence - and absurd.

origin, there is no evidence that gravity did not exist at the moment of the BB. I just explained that. If it did exist, as my model theorizes, my comments are reasonable. Certainly far less absurd than colliding membranes, time reversal or the existence of the supernatural. In any case, my model makes predictions based upon my hypotheses, which are not predicted by any other model I am aware of ... including the Standard (Lamda, cold, dark matter) Model.

Perhaps you are unaware of the many recent observations relating to phenomena not predicted by the SM, yet predicted by mine. Again, you might want to refresh your knowledge on this.

"5. Current research indicates that black hole rotational spin generally increases with mass. Schwarzschild black holes are still a purely mathematical construct and have yet to be confirmed to exist, and while the rotation rate may or may not eventually exceed c, it is not unreasonable to presume the surface matter of rotating supermassive black holes, irrespective of the physical state of the matter, must be rotating past a fixed point in space at many multiples of c."

A black holes rotation cannot exceed c.

Well, this is also something I need to clarify.

But let's start with your comment. It appears the laws of normal space preclude matter/energy from exceeding c. But in my meager understanding of GR, space's laws are suspended inside the event horizon. Ergosphere/frame-dragging research and other observations tend to support this.

A naked singularity's spin (or lack thereof) would be a moot point, would it not? In any case, to my knowledge, despite loop quantum gravity's presumed promise, we have yet to observe a naked singularity.

I think space does not allow the existence of certain phenomena, no matter how swell the math works out. Infinitely small/dense is one of those phenomena. Again, QM would suggest singularities can not exist in nature. And if QM is correct, then black holes have both volume, and spin. As I illustrate in my model, if the matter/energy of an extremely massive black hole occupied the volume of planet earth, and was spinning at 1,000 rps, the surface area at the equator (well inside the event horizon) would move past a fixed point in space at 133 times c.

"6. As black holes eventually gain mass far in excess of trillions and quadrillions of solar masses the strain on space increases (gravitationally induced ripple effect), collapsing and drawing in ever increasing volumes of space and all m/e contained within."

Completely made up idea, not supported by evidence.

I think you are incorrect on this. For one, the total mass of the local group (of galaxies) is on the order of around 4 trillions of our sun. Observations tend to support the theory that all will merge (eventually) into one black hole. Second, I believe there is some observational evidence of a gravitational ripple effect. Doesn't GR predict this? I could be wrong, I suppose. Still, my idea is no more absurd than any string-based theories.

"7. Eventually, as our visible/local universe nears the end of it's life cycle, only a few black holes remain, containing nearly all the mass of the Hubble volume, including the remnant left over from the Big Bang."

Not supported by evidence.

Well, if you mean we haven't observed this actually happening yet, of course you are right. Lol. But there is plenty of supporting evidence from many different fields. Of course, much of this evidence could also support other theories. However, I will once again direct your attention to the predictions my model makes that would tend to lend increasing support for my ideas, and less for conventional/mainstream theories.

Perhaps you have a good theory as to why we are continually discovering the existence of quasars/supermassives/etc earlier and earlier in the universe ... which definitely conflict with mainstream and/or popular theories regarding the state of (and evolution of) matter immediately following the BB.

As recently as a few months ago, George Smoot (Nobel) was on a discussion program with Saul Perlmutter describing an early universe where he states catagorically the universe was smooth ... "nearly a perfect sphere" ... with only "minor" variations in the CMB. According to him (and nobody challenged him on this) it was around 2 billion years after the BB before stars, galaxies ... and black holes formed. Apparently still resting on his (Nobel) laurels, as there is already very strong evidence of black holes as massive as 10 billion sols existing within a few hundred million years of the BB.

8. Regardless of the immense distance separating the last black holes, they will eventually find each other, and this final merging triggers a major contraction of surrounding space, dragging all remaining m/e released from the Big Bang back to the single merged black hole ... down to the last escaping photon and (theorized) graviton.

Not supported by evidence.

I would refer you to the quote by Neil DeGrasse Tyson at the beginning of my updated model on page 10. I'm just trying to offer plausible alternatives to popular theories. Sorry.

"9. This sudden collapse of space, in addition to the accumulated spin is sufficient to increase the rotational velocity of the black hole to the point where centrifugal force at the equator finally exceeds the gravitational attraction, briefly releasing a portion of it's mass before conservation of angular momentum slows the rotation below the threshold."

gibberish.

Perhaps. But time will tell if my gibberish is supported by the observations.

 

[quantum_wave]

...

Perhaps. But time will tell if my gibberish is supported by the observations.

That is a good answer and is similar to what I sometimes say about the tentativeness as one of the strengths of science. Things change as we learn more.

I do see you seem satisfied with space having the stretch and collapse characteristic, so I'll go right to my point. I wish you would consider one thing. Even given the ability of space to collapse, how can you proposes an alternative cosmology that denies the current consensus of accelerating expansion which predicts continued separation of the galaxies, without some explanation for what will change the current accelerating separation. If I understand your model, you say that eventually the galaxies will fall into their black holes and the black holes will all fall together, causing space to collapse, and when the collapse reaches the total mass limit, then the refreshed gigablackhole spins off the next Hubble mass. I know you have probably addressed that but what stops the accelerating separation?

 

[AlexG]

"9. This sudden collapse of space, in addition to the accumulated spin is sufficient to increase the rotational velocity of the black hole to the point where centrifugal force at the equator finally exceeds the gravitational attraction, briefly releasing a portion of it's mass before conservation of angular momentum slows the rotation below the threshold."

This is complete crank nonsense.

 

[pywakit]

That is a good answer and is similar to what I sometimes say about the tentativeness as one of the strengths of science. Things change as we learn more.

I do see you seem satisfied with space having the stretch and collapse characteristic, so I'll go right to my point. I wish you would consider one thing. Even given the ability of space to collapse,

Not all of space. Just (in the infinite scale of space) a very very tiny localized area. We humans think so small. GR already suggests space collapses at the 'singularity' and ergosphere studies support this, along with other observations. And we also can't say with any certainty that gravity's effect on space is linear. If the gravitational mass is big enough, and the ripple in space it causes is extremely localized, how do we know that space won't 'convulse' on what to us would seem a very large scale ... but to infinite space, barely even noticable.

Do we have a good explanation for the abundance of H and H3?

how can you proposes an alternative cosmology that denies the current consensus of accelerating expansion which predicts continued separation of the galaxies, without some explanation for what will change the current accelerating separation.

Easy. The current consensus is (on it's face) based on very little information, assumes facts not in evidence, is further based upon theories which also assume facts not in evidence, and ignore many facts currently IN evidence.

1. There is no known, proven mechanism (physical or otherwise) for the observed accelerating rate of recession of superclusters. Since we don't know what is causing it, we can't logically or reasonably assume it to be a permanent feature.

2. Our Hubble volume is not even in it's infancy. It is a mere 13.7 +/- Gy old. Long time to us. Nothing when compared to it's expected lifespan. For example, if Hawking radiation is valid, the math (and physics) says it will take (going from memory here) 10^130 years for a 50 million sol black hole to evaporate. According to emails exchanged between Dr Neil DeGrasse Tyson and myself a couple years ago, anyway. Who, by the way, happens to be friends with Hawking and is rooting for him to get his Nobel on this. Not looking good at the moment.

Tyson also informed me that the more massive the black hole, the slower the rate of (theorized) evaporation. A trillion sol black hole? How long is that going to take? I wouldn't have a clue. But until it's gone, the universe (Hubble volume) still 'lives'.

Also, there remains zero evidence that protons decay to nothing. NONE. After 30-40 years of intensive research on the matter. Best guess is a half-life of 10^83 years, with a 90% confidence rate. (see link in my model)

But mainstream clings to the belief that the Hubble volume will none-the-less fade to zero. Based on? The increasing rate of acceleration of the recession of superclusters. And also the irrational and egotisical belief (somewhat supported by math) that our universe was the first, and only universe.

As Dr Nicholas Suntzeff (High-z Supernova team, one of the discoverers of Dark Energy) said in an email to me in 2011 (to the best of my memory) "You are right. We don't know if this (the recession) is a permanent feature of the universe. Sometimes I think of (the mainstream view of the universe) as a house of cards, ready to collapse at any moment from some new observation."

Was space always expanding (if it is, indeed, space) at this rate? Apparently not. According to the Standard Model, it expanded at a much faster rate in the beginning, slowed down, then sped up again. What makes you (or anyone) think it couldn't just as easily slow down again? Suntzeff agreed. It could. All we can say at the moment, with some degree of certainty, is that the current rate of recession of superclusters is increasing.

3. "Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense". Unless you are in a closed system, of course. What are the odds our universe was the first of it's kind? That nothing existed ... ever ... before our happy little bomb went off?

Why did we ever make the assumption ours was the one and only? Ego. Arrogance. Stupidity. And of course, absense of evidence. Lol.

We simply have no justification for believing ours is the one and only. But it fits really well with the (lack of) evidence we have so far.

But there have been hints that this may not be the case any more. Several researchers have found what they believe to be "imprints" on the CMB. Both from external sources, and sources that existed prior to our universe. These are hotly contested of course. We will know more as our technology and analytical abilities improve. But there are hints.

QW, if, in fact, ours is not the only universe, there must be a reason why our universe is not inundated with all manner of exotic astronomical "flora and fauna".

If it isn't the only universe, then it seems absurd to believe there would be only 2 or 3.

It would be equally absurd to think none existed before.

If this is the case, if there have always been universes, and they existed throughout infinity, then even if there were universes with different physics (like many scientists hypothesize) there would also have to be an infinite number of universes with the exact same physics, mass, and other properties.

These other universes (if they are like ours, and mainstream theories of decaying to nothing are correct) would eventually reach ours ... unless all of space is permanently expanding throughout infinity at exponentially increasing rates. Which would be absurd if space was already infinite in scope. Where would the energy come from for space to expand exponentially forever? Strings? Where are they going to get their energy?

Really think the energy of an 'infinite' universe is going to increase in that manner? Energy can not be created or destroyed.

If protons never decayed, we would detect them. If they did decay, these universes would have to be very very far from ours. Too far ... and too spread out to cause any kind of detectable disturbance to the CMB.

Logic, reason tells me the most likely scenario is that all universes are just like ours. And they must all be closed loops. But close enough that we 'feel' (in the CMB) the shock waves of each nearby cycle. Too far away, and the shock waves are too dissapated.


I'm just an observer QW. What I observe leads me to think this is the most rational and sensible solution. It seems to provide a reasonable process. One that fits what we know. Yes, the universe is currently expanding. But we are barely past "conception" in the life of the universe.

If my predictions are confirmed, then what? We keep finding things that shouldn't exist in the mainstream theories.

If we find a supermassive black hole within the first million years, then what? How could it exist if gravity didn't?

I don't claim to understand Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. I know almost nothing about quantum physics. But it does appear that no matter what bizarre things happen on the quantum level, we always end up with the same physics on the macro level. The same processes. The same laws.

If I understand your model, you say that eventually the galaxies will fall into their black holes and the black holes will all fall together, causing space to collapse, and when the collapse reaches the total mass limit, then the refreshed gigablackhole spins off the next Hubble mass. I know you have probably addressed that but what stops the accelerating separation?

What started it?

What stops it is having reached it's trigger point, just like the black hole reaches it's trigger. Do you know that space does not have a trigger point?

The only one we seem to have witnessed (on a 'small' scale) is at a black hole. Clearly space is not invulnerable. It does have physical properties. Is it so unbelievable that it might trigger on a much larger scale?

 

[pywakit]

This is complete crank nonsense.

Compared to "colliding membranes"?

How many have bought into that nonsense?

Strings are not doing so well lately, are they Alex?

But thank you for your derision.

It could also be called conceptualizing.

 

[AlexG]

It could also be called conceptualizing.

Only by the crank who came up with that nonsense.

 

[origin]

pywakt, you have no model. You have no theory. You have a series of conjectures. Conjectures are neither theories nor models. Your conjectures appear to be based on half understood scientific concepts. I will address your specific replies to my comments when I get a chance.

 

[quantum_wave]

I will admit to being far more idealistic than you are because I know we cannot know the answers to some the the imponderables you mention, but I contemplate what I would accept as the best answer to the questions and make each answer fit with all the other choices I have had to make beyond what the scientific community has. That is why I have a model that I can claim has no internal inconsistencies, and is not inconsistent with known observations and data. If I'm shown to be wrong I go back and fix it. You are not so idealistic and I don't think you mind not having hypothesized answers to explain some of the as yet unknowns of nature, and to be realistic, that is a path to a model just like my technique is. I could ask for specifics about your ideas in unimportant areas and you could answer with "who's to say", but the bottom line is that most of the details could be made to fit around your model just like I have made them fit my basic idea of multiple big bang arenas intersecting and overlapping to spawn new big crunches and new big bang arenas. I'll leave you to work on the details and feel free to run an idea by me sometime.
QW

 

[pywakit]

Well, we agree on the possibility that space might not be stretching, but when you say, "They have theorized a mechanism", who is "they"? Are you talking about general relativity? I don't think they have a theorized mechanism which implies mechanics. The equations don't say how it works mechanically, just mathematically.

The 'they' is Frampton, Smoot, et al. No I'm talking about a physical mechanism that could explain the accelerating rate of recession of superclusters. But I guess mechanism is not the correct word. I suppose entropy is an observed process of thermodynamics.

Again, I'm not a physicist. Not a mathematician. I rely on summaries to understand (on very simplistic levels).

OH gee, I don't mean to make this about my thread, but just to say, the CMB is extreme red shifted photons, and I hypothesize that the CMB comes form outside the big bang arena, redshifted to a blurr of microwave energy from the light sources that existed within the parent arenas that overlap. Oops, no more of that here though.

Thanks for comming back and I hope the closing went well at work.

Well, in one sense we seem to be in some sort of agreement (for whatever that's worth). If the parent arenas had completely different physics why would we expect to see CMB at all from them?

 

[quantum_wave]

The 'they' is Frampton, Smoot, et al. No I'm talking about a physical mechanism that could explain the accelerating rate of recession of superclusters. But I guess mechanism is not the correct word. I suppose entropy is an observed process of thermodynamics.

Again, I'm not a physicist. Not a mathematician. I rely on summaries to understand (on very simplistic levels).



Well, in one sense we seem to be in some sort of agreement (for whatever that's worth). If the parent arenas had completely different physics why would we expect to see CMB at all from them?

Yes, there is that. But now I am not clear, are you saying that that you might agree that the physics in different big bang arenas might be the same as I am positing, or are you saying, "Who's to say", lol. Never mind, you can let that drop. I'll look for any updates from you that are pertinent to your model.

 

[pywakit]

I will admit to being far more idealistic than you are because I know we cannot know the answers to some the the imponderables you mention,

Not sure how idealism applies here QW. In any case, I do not know we cannot know the answers. And if they were imponderable, then we wouldn't be pondering them. Lol. I think, ultimately, there is only one question I suspect we may never know the answer to.

but I contemplate what I would accept as the best answer to the questions and make each answer fit with all the other choices I have had to make beyond what the scientific community has. That is why I have a model that I can claim has no internal inconsistencies, and is not inconsistent with known observations and data. If I'm shown to be wrong I go back and fix it. You are not so idealistic and I don't think you mind not having hypothesized answers to explain some of the as yet unknowns of nature, and to be realistic, that is a path to a model just like my technique is.

Well, the beauty of my model is it's simplicity. It is also it's Achilles heel. Either the BB was (essentially) as I describe it, or I am completely wrong. There doesn't seem to be much room for 'corrections'.

QW, I think the science community has been barking up the wrong tree(s). They have been looking for quantum solutions to describe events they don't have any evidence ever happened. Ever since GR was shown to be 'correct' science has been on a mission to explain how our universe was born of a 'singularity'. Every assumption about the states of matter and matter's evolution, and the evolution of the universe we observe today is based on the existence of the singularity.

How did we ever get to this? How did we ever come to believe our universe began with a singularity? Math. At first blush, totally absurd. But, again, since GR turned out to be quite accurate in it's predictions, science assumed Einsten had to be right. So now all science had to do was figure out how such a big universe could actually have occupied a space 'infinitely' smaller than an atom.

Black holes were never on science's radar. Not really. They were still theoretical constructs until just a couple decades ago. Science was, by this time, after 70-80 years of research, fully involved in seeking the quantum solution. Black holes, if they really existed, were nothing more than (in science's view) interesting but undoubtedly extremely rare artifacts. Inconsequential. Sort of. Of course, in the (presumed) heat death universe, they did have to go away (enter Hawking), but as to having any significant relevance to the construction and processes of the observable universe, no.

QW, I am not attempting to explain everything. Just trying to improve upon the Standard cosmological model. I am suggesting an alternative to a 'quantum' solution. A quantum solution that presumes our universe began with an infinitely small, infinitely dense singularity. I don't think nature allows infinitely small/infinitely dense. I haven't a clue how EM, gravity, and the strong/weak nuclear forces came to be. I don't care what happens on the sub-Planck level.

I just think there is a solution to "What was the BB?" that follows the known physical laws. Too, I think space has always existed. I think it has no boundaries. And I think our universe is just the natural manifestation of the universal properties of space. Repeated over and over, throughout infinity, and eternally. I think we will be able to (eventually) prove all these things to be true.

That one question we may never know the answer to?

How could space have always existed?

I could ask for specifics about your ideas in unimportant areas and you could answer with "who's to say", but the bottom line is that most of the details could be made to fit around your model just like I have made them fit my basic idea of multiple big bang arenas intersecting and overlapping to spawn new big crunches and new big bang arenas. I'll leave you to work on the details and feel free to run an idea by me sometime.
QW

Well, I wouldn't characterize my comments relating to current unknowns as "who's to say". Rather, I have just made observations relating to science's unproved assumptions. And please correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't your model fail to provide a physical mechanism that triggers a 'bang'? Doesn't it rely on physics that as yet do not exist? Doesn't it create 'Hubble volumes' of energy from 'very little'?

I simply don't see where all the energy comes from. In that regard, it appears little different (at it's foundation) from stringy theories. Maybe I just don't understand it well enough.

 

[pywakit]

pywakt, you have no model. You have no theory. You have a series of conjectures. Conjectures are neither theories nor models. Your conjectures appear to be based on half understood scientific concepts. I will address your specific replies to my comments when I get a chance.

"Half understood" gives me far more credit than I deserve. Thank you.

I would certainly concede that my description of the universe is crude, even primitive. Yet it is a model, as it does describe 'something' and makes very specific falsifiable predictions of previously unobserved phenomena, not already inherently or specifically predicted by the standard model of cosmology. Or by any other model ... to my knowledge.

From my understanding, a model does not require a mathematical description. All it needs to do is convey an idea clearly enough to be understood.

I'd throw currently testable in there too, but science blew past that little requirement 30 years ago with Hawking radiation and string theory.

 

[quantum_wave]

Not sure how idealism applies here QW. In any case, I do not know we cannot know the answers. And if they were imponderable, then we wouldn't be pondering them. Lol. I think, ultimately, there is only one question I suspect we may never know the answer to.

I have been doing cosmology for so long that I have entwined it with a personal philosophy, and then the cosmology and the philosophy tend to feed each other, which is why my "cosmology" is more idealistic.

I do often refer to the great unanswered or, as I like to say, "as yet" unanswered questions as imponderables. In my delusions, much of what goes on in my thoughts doesn't get out into my posts sometimes, but "imponderables" is a reference to a book I once bought called, The Imponderables. It dealt with those great questions, and so I don't mean some things cannot be answered to our own satisfaction, I just mean that we cannot always satisfy others with our answers.

Well, the beauty of my model is it's simplicity. It is also it's Achilles heel. Either the BB was (essentially) as I describe it, or I am completely wrong. There doesn't seem to be much room for 'corrections'.

That is true, and that is a beauty for sure, and hopefully you don't have to wake up thinking about it and go to sleep thinking about it. I imagine it evolves as thoughts solidify, but it addresses one great imponderable and leaves the rest for me, lol.

QW, I think the science community has been barking up the wrong tree(s). They have been looking for quantum solutions to describe events they don't have any evidence ever happened. Ever since GR was shown to be 'correct' science has been on a mission to explain how our universe was born of a 'singularity'. Every assumption about the states of matter and matter's evolution, and the evolution of the universe we observe today is based on the existence of the singularity.

How did we ever get to this? How did we ever come to believe our universe began with a singularity? Math. At first blush, totally absurd. But, again, since GR turned out to be quite accurate in it's predictions, science assumed Einstein had to be right. So now all science had to do was figure out how such a big universe could actually have occupied a space 'infinitely' smaller than an atom.

Black holes were never on science's radar. Not really. They were still theoretical constructs until just a couple decades ago. Science was, by this time, after 70-80 years of research, fully involved in seeking the quantum solution. Black holes, if they really existed, were nothing more than (in science's view) interesting but undoubtedly extremely rare artifacts. Inconsequential. Sort of. Of course, in the (presumed) heat death universe, they did have to go away (enter Hawking), but as to having any significant relevance to the construction and processes of the observable universe, no.

You and I do agree on the apparent misdirection, even off the tracks path that our "scientific body of knowledge" is on. We falsified the wrong medium and in the void came Einstein at the perfect moment in science history with the perfect solution, the EFEs. It wasn't a miracle set of equations that wrote themselves out of a dream, it was the state of the art mathematics that was ground out and refined and challenged and corrected and the end result was equations that do a far better job of predicting the motion of objects and the path of light from deep space than anything we had or have come up with since. The clincher was the general acceptance of the uncertainty principle. Scientists are satisfied with being able to do the math related to things that cannot be observed or explained mechanically. The uncertainty principle, the wavefunction, and mathematical descriptions of particles that cannot be observed and that a layman can't talk about without being wrong because the theory does not have any real physical support outside of the math and the consensus of the scientific community to sustain it.

But it is a wonderful set of circumstances for me and maybe for you too if you like working up alternative ideas based on the out dated concept that there are real natural laws that govern all things, and that those natural laws have physical and mechanical modes of operation. I spend my free time on my cosmology hobby and love it. I do it as a solitary enjoyment, partly because my views are so deluded according to our forum experts, and partly because I have thousands of hours of interconnected delusions that no human could sort out from the poorly conveyed ideas that I post. All in all, I like and respect you for having done your research and for taking a stand for something that is off beat but that is intended to address a problem we both see, even if the "smart guys" troll the Fringe for people to make fun of. I use the "ignore" more that most, but I don't care to "chat" with people who will never ever think for themselves and if they do, the last thing they would do is post it in a public forum so people like themselves could flame them, lol.

QW, I am not attempting to explain everything. Just trying to improve upon the Standard cosmological model. I am suggesting an alternative to a 'quantum' solution. A quantum solution that presumes our universe began with an infinitely small, infinitely dense singularity. I don't think nature allows infinitely small/infinitely dense. I haven't a clue how EM, gravity, and the strong/weak nuclear forces came to be. I don't care what happens on the sub-Planck level.

I just think there is a solution to "What was the BB?" that follows the known physical laws. Too, I think space has always existed. I think it has no boundaries. And I think our universe is just the natural manifestation of the universal properties of space. Repeated over and over, throughout infinity, and eternally. I think we will be able to (eventually) prove all these things to be true.

That one question we may never know the answer to?

How could space have always existed?

I agree, and though I sounded like I was saying I have solved everything, I didn't say me position clearly. What I have is that same discontent with you in many regards, but I do look at the big picture of the inconsistency between QM and GR. I solve it by starting from the bottom up and I hate to say my ideas on your thread, but "bottom" is the foundational medium. Look at my last post about "No room for SR and GR".

Well, I wouldn't characterize my comments relating to current unknowns as "who's to say". Rather, I have just made observations relating to science's unproved assumptions. And please correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't your model fail to provide a physical mechanism that triggers a 'bang'? Doesn't it rely on physics that as yet do not exist? Doesn't it create 'Hubble volumes' of energy from 'very little'?

Alas, yes, yes, and well no . As for the Hubble volume from very little, no, I'm a "preconditions to the big bang" guy who vows by conservation of energy. For example, if asked for a wild guess as to the diameter of the big crunch before the bang, I whisper a number in multiple light years across; OK, if you want more, let's say 10 to 50 light years across at the instant of the big bang, yikes.

I simply don't see where all the energy comes from. In that regard, it appears little different (at it's foundation) from stringy theories. Maybe I just don't understand it well enough.

Me either. But my model does invoke the "universe has always existed" explanation as opposed to "something from nothing", which is what some misguided enthusiasts think an initial singularity might be. Of course, the initial singularity really is one of those "who's to say" things, but certainly not "something from nothing" over "always existed" in my pea brain.

Thanks for taking the time to give me a better perspective on your thoughts.

Edit: I reread what I said about the diameter of the big crunch and have to amend the "multiple light years across" to multiple billions of light years across, and the 10 to 50 should have been 10 billion to 50 billion light years across. Now you can say "Yikes", lol.

 

[pywakit]

I have been doing cosmology for so long that I have entwined it with a personal philosophy, and then the cosmology and the philosophy tend to feed each other, which is why my "cosmology" is more idealistic.

I do often refer to the great unanswered or, as I like to say, "as yet" unanswered questions as imponderables. In my delusions, much of what goes on in my thoughts doesn't get out into my posts sometimes, but "imponderables" is a reference to a book I once bought called, The Imponderables. It dealt with those great questions, and so I don't mean some things cannot be answered to our own satisfaction, I just mean that we cannot always satisfy others with our answers.

That is true, and that is a beauty for sure, and hopefully you don't have to wake up thinking about it and go to sleep thinking about it. I imagine it evolves as thoughts solidify, but it addresses one great imponderable and leaves the rest for me, lol.

You and I do agree on the apparent misdirection, even off the tracks path that our "scientific body of knowledge" is on. We falsified the wrong medium and in the void came Einstein at the perfect moment in science history with the perfect solution, the EFEs. It wasn't a miracle set of equations that wrote themselves out of a dream, it was the state of the art mathematics that was ground out and refined and challenged and corrected and the end result was equations that do a far better job of predicting the motion of objects and the path of light from deep space than anything we had or have come up with since. The clincher was the general acceptance of the uncertainty principle. Scientists are satisfied with being able to do the math related to things that cannot be observed or explained mechanically. The uncertainty principle, the wavefunction, and mathematical descriptions of particles that cannot be observed and that a layman can't talk about without being wrong because the theory does not have any real physical support outside of the math and the consensus of the scientific community to sustain it.

But it is a wonderful set of circumstances for me and maybe for you too if you like working up alternative ideas based on the out dated concept that there are real natural laws that govern all things, and that those natural laws have physical and mechanical modes of operation. I spend my free time on my cosmology hobby and love it. I do it as a solitary enjoyment, partly because my views are so deluded according to our forum experts, and partly because I have thousands of hours of interconnected delusions that no human could sort out from the poorly conveyed ideas that I post. All in all, I like and respect you for having done your research and for taking a stand for something that is off beat but that is intended to address a problem we both see, even if the "smart guys" troll the Fringe for people to make fun of. I use the "ignore" more that most, but I don't care to "chat" with people who will never ever think for themselves and if they do, the last thing they would do is post it in a public forum so people like themselves could flame them, lol.

I agree, and though I sounded like I was saying I have solved everything, I didn't say me position clearly. What I have is that same discontent with you in many regards, but I do look at the big picture of the inconsistency between QM and GR. I solve it by starting from the bottom up and I hate to say my ideas on your thread, but "bottom" is the foundational medium. Look at my last post about "No room for SR and GR".

I did.

Alas, yes, yes, and well no . As for the Hubble volume from very little, no, I'm a "preconditions to the big bang" guy who vows by conservation of energy. For example, if asked for a wild guess as to the diameter of the big crunch before the bang, I whisper a number in multiple light years across; OK, if you want more, let's say 10 to 50 light years across at the instant of the big bang, yikes.

Me either. But my model does invoke the "universe has always existed" explanation as opposed to "something from nothing", which is what some misguided enthusiasts think an initial singularity might be. Of course, the initial singularity really is one of those "who's to say" things, but certainly not "something from nothing" over "always existed" in my pea brain.

Thanks for taking the time to give me a better perspective on your thoughts.

Edit: I reread what I said about the diameter of the big crunch and have to amend the "multiple light years across" to multiple billions of light years across, and the 10 to 50 should have been 10 billion to 50 billion light years across. Now you can say "Yikes", lol.

QW, you obviously have a much better understanding of math and the physical sciences than I do. I have spent a little time struggling to follow your model. It appears to have evolved to some degree since I first read it a couple years ago. Still, I think I get a fairly accurate (albeit basic) picture of your universe.

One change is I don't remember the original QWC describing the crunch as being a black hole containing all of the matter/energy of the (overlapping) universe. Is that correct? The other being the foundational medium. Perhaps I just don't remember the original version well enough.

Ok. Now I will say "yikes". Lol. I am having trouble with your crunch being 50 billion light years across. Our current universe is estimated to be (according to wiki) 93 billion light years. I am at a loss to understand how the universe could "crunch" at 50 billion. Even accounting for more matter/energy from the overlap, it still seems as if we have a universe with a lot of empty space. What triggers the crunch?
Do you describe a physical mechanism for the crunch? Or is it just "something" that happens at the 'critical' point but for no more apparent reason than the Standard Model's BB? What about what comes after the crunch? The expansion. What physical mechanism is involved here?

For me, this is not a hobby. It's a sideline since I am not independently wealthy and must work to support myself. But it is quite serious to me.

We approach our models from quite different perspectives. Most definitely I am not a philosopher. Rather, just a practical, objective observer who has a basic understanding of the structure, processes, and evolution of our universe.

So how can your model be falsified? What predictions does it make? Predictions that have any hope of being tested? Did I miss them? Yes, I do understand that you are not claiming to have 'real' model, but simply offering a different view of how the universe might be. But don't you want to be right? You have spent so many hundreds (if not thousands) of hours on this. Is it really just a deliberate exercise in futility?

Since you have such a better grasp of science than I do, why don't you try to ascertain if there is some way to test it? You say it does not violate any laws of physics, but yet you need 'new' physics. Is this logical?

Every mainstream/popular model I have looked at needs 'new' physics. Gods, magic, multiple dimensions. Virtually all remain (ultimately) untestable, including the Standard Model. As you are no doubt aware, until just a couple years ago, string theory made no predictions at all. Finally, after several decades, after untold $$ in research grants and thousands of physicists/mathematicians burning up innumerable hours, they came up with a few extremely weak predictions. According to critics, predictions that could, if verified, also point in other directions besides strings. These predictions, even if observed, would not have supported their theories in any meaningful way. Yet it now appears that even those tenuous predictions have been shown to be false. Clearly, the possibility of multi-dimensions ... all based on strings ... seems more and more remote.

So does CERNs latest findings affect your model in any way? Are all your overlapping universes constrained within the 4 dimensions we currently observe?

I guess we have very different motives. I really want to be right. It's not enough to think someday in the distant future my view of the universe may be proved correct. I won't care because I will be long dead. I want to know now.

My specific, and inherent predictions are generally in conflict with mainstream theories. While new discoveries over the past few years point tantalizingly in in my direction, while at the same time baffling academia, there is not yet enough evidence to 'prove' I am correct. But we are getting closer and closer to finding out. We are getting very close.

So for you, it may be just an outlet, for me it is a very exciting time. And a frightening time. I could be very wrong, and this would be, to no small degree, very distressing. With much trepidation, I keep abreast of the latest astronomical discoveries, each announcement. Does this one falsify my model?

So far ... no. On the contrary. Nothing in particle physics recent research has conflicted with my model. And each new astronomical observation stays in line with my predictions.

As I have said many times, I'm not trying to describe how everything functions in the universe. Just want to answer some of the big questions. What was the BB? Was it the first? Is the universe infinite? Are there an infinite number of finite universes in the omniverse? Are they the same as ours in every way, other than the distribution of matter and where they are in their evolution?

Are all finite universes closed loops?

I think we will find these answers soon.

 

[quantum_wave]

I did.

QW, you obviously have a much better understanding of math and the physical sciences than I do.

I don't think that is obvious.

I have spent a little time struggling to follow your model. It appears to have evolved to some degree since I first read it a couple years ago. Still, I think I get a fairly accurate (albeit basic) picture of your universe.

One change is I don't remember the original QWC describing the crunch as being a black hole containing all of the matter/energy of the (overlapping) universe. Is that correct?

The crunch contains, say, half from each parent's content, all caught up in the overlap, because as the galactic material from each mature parent arena rendezvous at the center of gravity in the overlap space, the growing crunch of galactic material and cosmic debris approaches a natural limit (new physics) called the "critical capacity" of a big crunch. Once critical capacity is reached, BANG!. My equation for the critical capacity of two parents (there could be more than two parents) sets the input needed to reach critical capacity equal the the content of any one mature parent.

The other being the foundational medium. Perhaps I just don't remember the original version well enough.

Your are right. The foundational medium is an evolution from the earlier concepts of the Infinite Spongy Universe, an aether based cosmology at that time too, but as I gained more ideas about the characteristics that the aether must have, and to contrast it with earlier aether models and superseded theories, I gave it a face lift, and called it the Foundational Medium. It is where quantum mechanics take place below the particle level of the Standard Particle Model. I am hypothesizing that the so call fundamental particles which are said to have no internal composition, do in fact have complex standing wave patterns governed by a process called Quantum Action.

Ok. Now I will say "yikes". Lol. I am having trouble with your crunch being 50 billion light years across. Our current universe is estimated to be (according to wiki) 93 billion light years.

Good, I use that for shock value, lol. However there is a Wiki page that estimates the diameter of a big crunch at 10 billion light years across (you are likely to find anything on Wiki). I just use a larger diameter for the top "wild ass guess" and explain it as a range from 10 to 50. Part of the reason for including that comment at all is to differentiate between the "singularity" we get by back tracking the expansion down to a point, where the math fails. I'm just saying, if there was a big crunch in our history, you wouldn't be able to back track all the way to a singularity. Of course, we still have the problem that there is no physics for the bang, even if there was a 10 billion LY across crunch preceded it.

I am at a loss to understand how the universe could "crunch" at 50 billion. Even accounting for more matter/energy from the overlap, it still seems as if we have a universe with a lot of empty space.

Yes we do, but we also don't know the extent of what is out there except in theory, so if there is a ratio of matter to space, then there is a diameter that the matter will display when it is all crunched to just before the collapse/bang of critical capacity.

What triggers the crunch?
Do you describe a physical mechanism for the crunch? Or is it just "something" that happens at the 'critical' point but for no more apparent reason than the Standard Model's BB?

When critical capacity is approaching as the crunch grows by accreting galactic material from the parent arenas, gravitational compressing is in command, and the most stable particles in the universe are all that have been able to survive as individual particles to that point. I won't describe what I call "gamma chaos" but known particles are decimated right down to the quarks. Photons have long since been unable to escape and their energy, along with the energy of electrons and plasma are captured by the crunch as wave energy that adds their quanta to the mix along with the remaining particles, and the energy of the crunch grows as the quanta are accumulated in the growing core. At this point the crunch is still charged partilces and neutral particles with a net neutral charge, and electrons are free but almost still, and their nature is no longer the same as when they occupy orbitals, hypothetically. Energy is conserved, charge is conserved, and momentum is transferred to quantum energy.

When the gravitational pressure brought to bare on the medium occupied by the crunch (and the particles remaining are composed of wave energy in the medium that still have sufficient space to function until then) then the collapse is the final expelling of space through which the wave energy of the particles is traversing right up until then. Needless to say, when that space is expelled, the particles cease to function as individual quarks (I am calling them at this point), and the whole crunch, for a single instant, is like an individual particle in its own right. That is at the instant of the collapse/bang.

You know, if you prefer me not to expound in this much detail on your thread, I won't. Just say so.

What about what comes after the crunch? The expansion. What physical mechanism is involved here?

The Big Bang is referred to as a collapse/bang in my model, and that is the momentum of the crunch inward at the instant of critical capacity. Then the wave energy that represents all of the quanta of the crunch at the final instant of the crunch rushes inward to reach natures maximum wave energy density limit. There is no more compression to hold it there since the collapse is the final act of compression. The wave energy passes right through the tiny space (now we are talking extremely tiny compared to the 10 to 50 billion LY diameter) at the center of gravity and keeps right on going into spherical expansion out of the collapse/bang.

For me, this is not a hobby. It's a sideline since I am not independently wealthy and must work to support myself. But it is quite serious to me.

I'm sorry, lol. I hope you have a job that provides for your needs and from which you can see the days of independence ahead. Good luck.

We approach our models from quite different perspectives. Most definitely I am not a philosopher. Rather, just a practical, objective observer who has a basic understanding of the structure, processes, and evolution of our universe.

My whole hobby came together after I retired, so there is time for philosophy to seep into your atmosphere, but the two are appropriately kept separate and should be able to be explained separately. I said that my philosophy and my cosmology tend to overlap but that is more of a realization than an intention.

So how can your model be falsified? What predictions does it make? Predictions that have any hope of being tested? Did I miss them?

Yes, you missed them. I predict a big crunch, I predict separate parent arenas that keep expanding out there until their radii are so big that their natural expansion causes them to expand into the same (preexisting) space. I predict critical capacity, I predict a foundational medium, I predict that particles are composed of standing waves in the medium, I predict that there is a process of quantum action that establishes and maintains the presence of particles in the medium, I predict that gravity is an imbalance between the inflowing wave energy component and the spherical out flowing wave energy component of particles, and more, and more, lol.

And I don't think it can be falsified, not only because all of what I just described takes place in realms smaller or larger than we currently have the ability to observe, but because there are not tests proposed in my model.

I do have a thread over at CosmoQuest, the former Bad Astronomy and the Universe Today (BAUT), called Our Ability to Observe. That is an unusually helpful and courteous group that always is willing to answer questions, so stop by and find me (Bogie is my name there).

Yes, I do understand that you are not claiming to have 'real' model, but simply offering a different view of how the universe might be. But don't you want to be right? You have spent so many hundreds (if not thousands) of hours on this. Is it really just a deliberate exercise in futility?

That is a charged question. Forums are all different, but very few will provide a space where a layman can expound on cosmology. Even CosmoQuest refuses any discussion on topics not generally accepted by the scientific community in all of their sub forums except one, and all threads in that "ATM" (Against the Mainstream) forum have to be approved and are closely moderated; and infractions are liberally distributed, lol. I have permission to start a thread right now but I am trying to wrap up a few ideas here before I jump into ATM over there. I am very good at following their rules and have been a member there since 2006 or so and have only one warning for using the word "ass" in the phrase "wild ass guess", so you can see the level of moderation. But it keeps the disparagement and name calling down to almost none, aside from what is deserved due to poorly presented ideas.

Since you have such a better grasp of science than I do, why don't you try to ascertain if there is some way to test it? You say it does not violate any laws of physics, but yet you need 'new' physics. Is this logical?

It isn't literally logical, and I don't think I have a better grasp. However, it goes without saying that the professional alternative models all suffer if they refuse to invoke new physics because there is still the elephant in the room, QM and GR are not consistent and there is no consensus as to where to draw the line between them. And the other elephant is that there is not yet any consensus or even good ideas that I know of about quantum gravity. My simple statement of how gravity works in my model makes it logical for me to call it a hobby instead of defending the physics and mechanics of the foundational medium to a group as ill manned as our beloved group here.

Every mainstream/popular model I have looked at needs 'new' physics. Gods, magic, multiple dimensions. Virtually all remain (ultimately) untestable, including the Standard Model. As you are no doubt aware, until just a couple years ago, string theory made no predictions at all. Finally, after several decades, after untold $$ in research grants and thousands of physicists/mathematicians burning up innumerable hours, they came up with a few extremely weak predictions. According to critics, predictions that could, if verified, also point in other directions besides strings. These predictions, even if observed, would not have supported their theories in any meaningful way. Yet it now appears that even those tenuous predictions have been shown to be false. Clearly, the possibility of multi-dimensions ... all based on strings ... seems more and more remote.

I couldn't agree more. That doesn't say though that the mathematics can be ignored, and if I want to come out from behind the "hobby" curtain, I will have to begin the quantification. I am working on fields and charges in my back office. I stay here because of the Pseudoscience forum and now the Fringe forums where I can air my ideas without moderators infracting me.

So does CERNs latest findings affect your model in any way?

I keep a close eye on it. I subscribe to Symmetry, their free magazine, and of course I follow the science media like you do, maybe not with as much anticipation, but with interest.

Are all your overlapping universes constrained within the 4 dimensions we currently observe?

Yes, but if you read posts #2 and #18 in my Alternative Theories thread you can see what I say about dimensions.

I guess we have very different motives. I really want to be right. It's not enough to think someday in the distant future my view of the universe may be proved correct. I won't care because I will be long dead. I want to know now.

I do too, and perhaps like you, I think there is some truth to my model even though it doubles as a perfect hobby for me right now.

My specific, and inherent predictions are generally in conflict with mainstream theories. While new discoveries over the past few years point tantalizingly in in my direction, while at the same time baffling academia, there is not yet enough evidence to 'prove' I am correct. But we are getting closer and closer to finding out. We are getting very close.

So for you, it may be just an outlet, for me it is a very exciting time. And a frightening time. I could be very wrong, and this would be, to no small degree, very distressing. With much trepidation, I keep abreast of the latest astronomical discoveries, each announcement. Does this one falsify my model?

So far ... no. On the contrary. Nothing in particle physics recent research has conflicted with my model. And each new astronomical observation stays in line with my predictions.

As I have said many times, I'm not trying to describe how everything functions in the universe. Just want to answer some of the big questions. What was the BB? Was it the first? Is the universe infinite? Are there an infinite number of finite universes in the omniverse? Are they the same as ours in every way, other than the distribution of matter and where they are in their evolution?

Are all finite universes closed loops?

I think we will find these answers soon.

I'll be glad when that unfolds. But you will find that you will still have alternative ideas even if yours are somehow falsified. At least that is what I have found over the years. I started out with the statement, maybe ten years ago, that asked about "all of the stuff that makes up our universe, could it be called elementary energy particles (EEPs)?" Me EEPs were falsified pretty quickly, lol, but I always have had the next alternative idea because I know that cosmology is still not complete.