Just for the record, if I decide to fire you as the official outliner of the ISU, it will be for one of the two following reasons; 1) You don't think when you read my word salad and therefore you get frustrated by your own misconceptions which you then portray as convolutions :shrug:, or 2) You are too close to revealing what I am hiding "ergo I am making cloudy fuzziness on purpose to avoid some degree of easy inspection/investigation of my scenario/model etc".
But more than likely if the following doesn't clear things up you will resign the position and save me having to fire you
. There is no severence pay either way, lol. Now if you want to get serious, and I know you don't want to go back and think while you reread the past series of posts, I'll struggle through your post and see if I can unravel some of your misconceptions without lifting the fuzziness enough to reveal how twisted the whole thing really is.
...
You appear to convolute ideas of local crunches with big crunc( big bang ) and I adresse one simple problem with any ideas of an Infinite Occupied Space(IS-IOS etc) if it is infinite then infinity is contradiction to having a over all big crunch. This is real simple QW, infinity cannot rationally and logically be stated as being an overall big crunch( big bang ) etc....
Either it is 1) a clear contradiction, 2) a misconception on your part, undoubtably due to my poor method of conveying the ideas, or 3) you just didn't think when you read my carefully crafted word salad. Probably a combination of 2 and 3.
Listen, think and read this next part:
In my so called model there is one infinite universe and I describe the landscape of that infinite universe as "the multiple big bang arena landscape of the greater universe" which is composed of a potentially infinite number of active big bang arenas at any given time. Arenas start as "infant arenas" and mature as matter forms from the wave energy in them, and clumping forms particles, particles to atoms and molecules, atoms and molecules to gases that condense to stars, huge first round stars go supernova and form dust clouds around the central black hole remnants of the first round stars, there are hundreds of billions of these dust/black hole clouds in an arena that mature to galaxies and galaxy groups that all are moving away from each other because the expansion momentum of the early arena was imparted to the particles as they formed.
Now here is where I think you have come to misunderstand what a big crunch is. Nowhere do I say that the infinite universe ever was in a single big crunch; quite the contrary if you read back to where I mention the "critical capacity" of a big crunch being the reason that the whole universe doesn't collapse into a single big crunch.
Every big crunch bangs into a new "infant" arena (arena is not a universe) at a critical point of wave energy density. The big bang is finite. The greater universe is infinite. How many finite big crunches and big bang arenas that emerge from big crunches can fit into an infinite universe. Just as many as the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin; an infinite number. I know people don't like it that I boldly invoke the infinities, but it is my model.
Infinite is a word that I discussed in a recent post. Do you remember where I said, as an attempt to put "infinite" into perspective in my so called model, that anything finite is almost nothing, almost nowhere, almost never relative to the infinities of energy, space and time?
Further, I don't know how you could come to such a misconception if you had read what I said. I always refer to the concept that all big bang arenas are preceded by a big crunch which is caused by the convergence of two parent arenas. Since I also remember telling you that there is only one universe, how could you arrive at the misconception that two universes could ever exist in my model, and then converge to produce a universal big crunch that then could lead to a potentially infinite single universe composed of a potentially infinite number of active arenas?
Here again you still appear to inferring an Infinite Space that has inferred finiteness as a big crunch. Irrational contradiction. imho
Again, your misconception is apparent. That statement was referring to one of the potentially infinite number of big crunches. Maybe what is confusing is that they are all essentially the same, and are the result of the same process called "arena action". It could be confusing to you because I refer to arena action as a macro process, but if you read back you will see that I also say that nature imposes limits on the size scale. The big crunch is limited in what can accumulate in one; limited by the critical capacity that causes a crunch to bang when it reaches the energy density limit that equates to critical capacity of a big crunch.
To be less fuzzy, the so called model invokes the infinities of energy, space, and time. Big crunches, big bangs, big bang arenas are all finite in energy, space, and time, because in the jargon of the so called model, they are "conceived by mature galaxy filled parent arenas" via the convergence of those parent arenas. The convergence results in galactic matter and energy being captured in the big crunch by gravity, and when those big crunches go "bang", an "infant arena full of wave energy is born". Big crunches and big bangs like these are being formed in potentially infinite numbers at every instant across the potentially infinite big bang arena landscape of the greater universe.
Here again, your terminologies convolute your given statements i.e here you appear to assign the word "arena" to an infinitely collapsed universe--- that inself illogical/irrational ---and the refer to this "arena" as tho it were the expanding universe, yet your using the word "arena".
So it is a convoluting by your statements that infer/imply infinite yet *collapsed big crunch/big bang arena, and if that is whole collapased then there is certainly no place for a "parent arena" in that scenario. If arena is the whole, then how can there be a parent? Oh maybe by parent you mean the previous state/phase before the big crunch/big bang, Well in the case every previous big crunch/big bang was a parent so there all parents and the current one that exists will become a parent once it crunches.
Those particles that I refer to are forming in a new "infant" arena. You have paid no attention to how I have clearly stated that there is only one universe. A big bang does not equate to a universe. I remember specifically going over this with you. I even remember saying that because in the standard cosmology of big bang theory, the universe is all causally connected to our big bang, people sometimes get the misconception that if our big bang equates to the universe, then the multiple big bang landscape of my so called model must equate to multiple universes; it doesn't, it is all going on in one universe, and the multiple big bangs each produce a new finite arena. The reason I went into that with you was so you wouldn't labor under that misconception. And yet, here we are with you in full blown misconception mode, pointing to inconsistencies because you haven't been able to extract from my words the meaning of those words. I hope this explanation helps clear that up.
Connection and interconnection is not in question in my mind and never has been QW. I can better go into details of the mechanism of connection once we have a clear outlined hierarchy. *Were certainly not there, and new version is not in a logical rational sequence. Your appear to want to keep jumbling the sequence making the outline/heirachy confusing whereas the whole point of a outline is for clarification purposes. imho
Maybe some of the confusion is yours based on the misconceptions you have stated above. If my explanations above help clear up those misconceptions then the process of outlining, if you think there is benefit in it, might get moving forward.
Inter-connectivity is not in question QW. I repeat again, any local arenas you have appear to infer multi-verse and/or bubble universe concepts. In the former multi-verse no one of knowledge denies that all such multi-verses are inter-connected only by gravity.
Bubble-universes I have not looked into as much, altho, in my mind the same inter-relationships minimally by gravity holds also. Only on my list of Top Ten Radical ideas do a list any ideas of sperated non-connected bubble-lie universes.
You are hallucinating or fantasizing to form new misconceptions. Your are adding words like multi-verse and bubble universe concept that I have not once mentioned. And it isn't that I am not familiar with them, it is because they don't apply in my so called model. "Multiple big bang arenas" has somehow in your mind become multiple universes, but I have already addressed that misconception above. Put bubble universes out of your mind too. I am familiar with the cosmologies you are hinting at and they are not related to mine because they are most often based on a beginning and initial conditions that don't apply in my so called model. They are not "past eternal" as mine is; I'm sure I have mentioned this but if not, you should think of the universe in my so called model as an eternal sameness characterized by the Perfect Cosmological Principle (Google it), as portrayed by the arena process that perpetuates the multiple big bang arena landscape of the greater universe.
This is pretty much what I got the first time around, then you noted that foundational was really the foundation so I put it a bottom where it belongs or pinholes and now you've moved it back to near the overall generalized top.
You mean this: Macro Infinite Space(MIS ) aka greater universe( GU ) aka Macro Infinite Occupied Space( MIOS ) > The medium or foundational wave energy
Your invoking an convoluting irrationality into the process QW for no good reason that I can understand. It is tho you want to confuse rather than make clear even if that is not your intentions, it appears that way to me.
Let me know it I have been able to clear any of that up, or not.
Top/overall/cosmic;
Macro Infinite Space(MIS ) aka greater universe( GU ) aka Macro Infinite Occupied Space( MIOS ) >
2nd level/tier;
*particles( fermions and bosons ) gravity and any combination thereof i.e. thereof = .-- ex parent arenas(?) > arenas(?) > local big bangs(?) --- ergo clusters of galaxies, galaxies, solar systems, planets, biologicals, molecules, atoms( fermion and bosonic "particles and gravity"
..{ 2nd level is all inclusive in my mind--- barring any gravitational odd-bird out scenarios ---but for sake of clarity in regards to your concerns of something underlying somethingness }.....
After we see if the misconception about big crunches is resolved, then lets discuss this second level because as you have regenerated it in the 2nd level it obviously still harbors the misconception that there are local big bangs, which I suppose also means that you are picturing that grand big bang as well. There is no "grand" big bang, only "local" big bangs if I may use your terminology.
3rd level/tier;
Foundational Wave Energy Spherical Action( FWESA ) >
We will have to rework the levels and what is in them, but why do you find it necessary to abbreviate the words Foundational Wave Energy Spherical Action into FWESA which is something that I will never be able to look at and extract the term "foundational wave energy" from? Maybe we can use the words and put off the abbreviations until we have an outline, and then put in the coding later so than no one will understand it.
4th level/tier;
Standing Wave Patterns( SWP ) >
5th level/tier;
Pinholes Action( PA )
So this is 2nd time I'm posting this version--- top-to-bottom --QW, so, if truly want to clarify and not convolute and confuse, pleas take that version based on your comments as stated, and add whatever in between, or change the order any that are not in proper sequence.
Again, I'm assuming you understand--- I know you do ---what and how a simple to grasp, top-to-bottom outline/heirachy is designed/formatted.
Clarify with as simple a few additions as possible. That is what I did on 2nd level Instead of having to sequential list ever celestrial object--- tho I did include them into that category --- so as to not have to list them all.
Your below is way far to confusing convoluting etc.....imho. Clarify not convolution is the name of the game. *Not to be critical but it is how it appears to me. I want clarity. I would think that you would also, but maybe not. Thx for you past attempts at clarifying, without too much confusion or convolutions and any future such attempts
r6
Sure, clarity is the goal, but SWP and PA? I already forgot what they stand for, lol. I propose we readdress this last section and the levels after we see if you think the above clarification helps straighten out the convolutions about grand big crunches and local big crunches
.
(6893)
