Quantum Wave Cosmology updates 2009

[quantum_wave]

QW, I'm thinking in terms of our current Universe being ca. 14 billion years old, and intelligent life of some form or another having existed in the Universe for ca 9 billion years. Let's assume that the oldest stable stars formed ca 13 billion years ago, and they had planetary systems. This is a fair assumption because astronomers know of stars that are of about that age. Let's further assume that there might be at least one life-friendly planet in most solar systems; in an environment where evolution was allowed to run its course, in whatever form that took, life takes about 4 billion years to rise to our level of intelligence. Hence my previous statement that intelligent life has existed in the universe for about 9 billion years.

I'm with you so far.

Now the question is, does evolution cease at the physical stage?
Or when a species reaches a certain level of intelligence, do they continue to advance mentally until they have reached a state of transcendence, where they leave the physical body behind and continue as pure mind, outside of time and space? Is this what Teilhard de Chardin meant when he talked about the world gaining a soul?

I think that is near what he meant and there is a spiritual side to what he is saying. The spiritual side calls upon the supernatural though, and that takes the discussion out of the realm of science.

My main point is, if there was life as intelligent as ourselves in the Universe as far back as 9 billion years ago, how much further have they advanced since that time? Have they by now progressed to become the Overminds of the Universe? Have they taken upon themselves the task of leading us towards transcendence? Is it our destiny to ultimately join them in this job of bringing species up to the point of self-aware intelligence, so that they can control their own environments? Moreover, to continue the process of advancement in the mental sphere so as to bring them into the transcendent realm?

There are many ways for minds only as advanced as ours are to imagine those things. Growing in intelligence as a species or even breaking off into a new super intelligent species are ways that fit with science and lead to the possibility of increased control of the environment and of our ability to expand our presence out into the cosmos. However, when the next step in the visualization of possibilities becomes transcendence, the physical separation between mind and body, the ability to control the physical environment would seem to be defeated instead of increased.

Enlightenment and the spiritual journey that takes place within an individual is more likely to be the closest to "transcendence" that we can hope for. But for those who experience such enlightenment in their own spiritual sense, that may be adequate.

 

[thinking]

Nice to know someone else was thinking along the same lines as me

are though familar with the Babalon 5 series ?

 

[quantum_wave]

forget what I said above ( what I was trying to get at was like sound going through air , just awkwardly )

so what your saying is the QW medium is aether

That's right. The aether is negative energy density that emanates from mass. Since the emanation is equal to the positive energy of the mass, the amount of mass is faithfully represented in the aether as the mass moves through space.

If those emanations are expanding out from mass at supposedly the speed of light, then there is an expanding corridor of negative energy density speeding out into the aether from every mass. Out in the aether where those corridors overlap, the energy density is a combination of the various corridors that overlap, and so any point in space has a negative energy density that is a combination of all of the emanations from all of the masses that have contributed. The lowest energy density path from any point in space would be in the direction toward the lowest energy density corridor from that point.

 

[Xylene]

I'm with you so far.
I think that is near what he meant and there is a spiritual side to what he is saying. The spiritual side calls upon the supernatural though, and that takes the discussion out of the realm of science.
There are many ways for minds only as advanced as ours are to imagine those things. Growing in intelligence as a species or even breaking off into a new super intelligent species are ways that fit with science and lead to the possibility of increased control of the environment and of our ability to expand our presence out into the cosmos. However, when the next step in the visualization of possibilities becomes transcendence, the physical separation between mind and body, the ability to control the physical environment would seem to be defeated instead of increased.

Enlightenment and the spiritual journey that takes place within an individual is more likely to be the closest to "transcendence" that we can hope for. But for those who experience such enlightenment in their own spiritual sense, that may be adequate.

I suggest that 'supernatural' is a word we use only because we don't understand the rules that govern the process. Lightning was once thought of as some sort of supernatural agency, for example. Yet as our knowledge grows, and we begin to make more and more sense of the world and the Universe around us, we gain more understanding of the governing processes. Less and less is regarded is 'super' and more is seen as natural.

 

[thinking]

That's right. The aether is negative energy density that emanates from mass. Since the emanation is equal to the positive energy of the mass, the amount of mass is faithfully represented in the aether as the mass moves through space.

If those emanations are expanding out from mass at supposedly the speed of light, then there is an expanding corridor of negative energy density speeding out into the aether from every mass. Out in the aether where those corridors overlap, the energy density is a combination of the various corridors that overlap, and so any point in space has a negative energy density that is a combination of all of the emanations from all of the masses that have contributed. The lowest energy density path from any point in space would be in the direction toward the lowest energy density corridor from that point.

perhaps but if neg. and pos. emanations are balanced , how do the neg. become dominate ?

I don't quite get you here

 

[quantum_wave]

I suggest that 'supernatural' is a word we use only because we don't understand the rules that govern the process. Lightning was once thought of as some sort of supernatural agency, for example. Yet as our knowledge grows, and we begin to make more and more sense of the world and the Universe around us, we gain more understanding of the governing processes. Less and less is regarded is 'super' and more is seen as natural.

You are exactly right. I have always said that if there is a God that we can find, test, and confirm, then we will understand God and bring that understanding into science.

 

[quantum_wave]

perhaps but if neg. and pos. emanations are balanced , how do the neg. become dominate ?

I don't quite get you here

Your are a true thinker there thinking .

There is a time delay between the energy that enters mass from the aether, and the energy that emanates from mass into the aether. During any given quantum period, the pull and push are equal, but much of the energy that is emanated entered the mass in a previous quantum period. While within the mass, it was pulled into high density spots, those spots bounce into expansion, and before the energy in the expanding quantum waves reaches the aether surrounding the mass, some of that wave is caught up in subsequent quantum action within the mass.

I call this effect "containment". The containment is determined by the amount of mass, and so the time delay due to containment is proportional to the mass.

Thus, the wave form is a full quantum of pull energy making up the trough of the wave during each quantum period (negative in the amount of one quantum) and the push crest of the wave form includes only a portion of the energy pulled in by the specific pull due to containment.

Therefore the wave form has a greater trough due to the pull when compared to the crest which is diminished by containment. The pull trough therefore always is greater than the push crest for the specific energy pulled in during that quantum period making the emanation a net negative energy.

Of course, the contained energy from previous quantum periods does get emanated with a time delay, so the emanation during any given quantum period includes energy that was pulled in during more than one quantum period.

The time delay is equivalent to the energy in the mass since the contained energy in the high density spots always equals the energy of the mass.

Pretty complicated isn't it? Somewhere earlier in this thread I showed a graphic of the wave from and tried to explain it.

Edit: Here is the wave form graphic

 

[AlphaNumeric]

First, are you saying that you admit that currently accepted theory cannot say what happened at the moment of the big bang, but you object to talking about ideas about what it could have been?

No, I never said I object to it.

And since I say that one idea in QWC is that the big bang was preceded by a big crunch, are you saying that I pulled that our of my behind? That idea has been around since before I was born.

I am well aware of the history of such ideas in cosmology. My point is that QWC has zero reason to claim it can describe before the BB. I have asked you to provide me with one phenomena at all which you can describe and you cannot provide, so claiming you can do things beyond current theories is a little bit of a stretch.

I asked you if you could provide a single reason why your work was more valid than someone reading from the Bible. You didn't reply, why is that? Could it be you know that when you answer the question "What, if anything, came before the BB" you do nothing more than make it up, just like religious people. The fact people doing general relativity have made serious attempts to address the BB in their work doesn't mean that you simply making it up isn't "Pulling it from your backside". The fact someone else came up with a concept doesn't mean you giving your 2 cents on it is valid science. If anything, it's worse because you are simply looking for someone else's idea then putting your own spin on it.

Let's call that step one in QWC. The first speculative idea in QWC is that the expansion of our observable universe was preceded by a big crunch. I consider that reasonable and responsible speculation.

It's speculation which you have zero basis for. When GR people say "The universe is expanding" they do so because their theory has a quantitative description of the universe which implies its very likely to be dynamical in size and shape. Then they got evidence from Hubble. You have no working model, no derivations, no nothing. You simply saw someone else's idea and said "Oh, my work can do that!". Really? So QWC has a working description of dynamical space-time? Where is it then? It's less mathematically than the Einstein Field Equations? You mean those equations you don't know, don't understand and so just make up lies and bias about to kid yourself you aren't wasting your time? Those equations?

So what is your view of the possibility that the expansion of our observable universe was preceded by a big crunch?

It's irrelevant to the validity of your claims. Both Newton and Einstein predict perihelion precession in Mercury but one of them predicts the wrong amount and is experimentally excluded. See how this works? The devil is in the details. What's your basis for QWC talking about dynamical space-time? Where's the justification your work is anything more than you making up unsupported claims as you go along?

Nowhere.

 

[quantum_wave]

No, I never said I object to it.

So you never said you object to it. Do you object to it?

I am well aware of the history of such ideas in cosmology. My point is that QWC has zero reason to claim it can describe before the BB.

Stop right there for a moment. Try to apply that superior brain of yours to what is going on here. Since you are well aware of the history of such ideas in cosmology, I interpret your objection to QWC is that you see no reason for me to claim I can describe “before” the BB. I’m testing my understanding of what you are trying to tell everyone by posting here. Do you understand that I am conducting a discussion about “before” the BB? Everything I say is open to discussion.

And remember rule #1 posted in this thread earlier: Please remember that ideas in QWC are about things that happen at levels of order that we cannot yet observe and therefore are not addressed by mainstream science to any remarkable degree.

I have asked you to provide me with one phenomena at all which you can describe and you cannot provide, so claiming you can do things beyond current theories is a little bit of a stretch.

I want to understand this. You believe that I am claiming I can do things beyond current theories because I am leading a discussion about things beyond current theories? Is that it?

And are you saying that I don’t have any phenomena that I can describe? You don’t like the way I describe phenomena, or you don’t think that what I describe can be called phenomena? I’m missing your point.

I asked you if you could provide a single reason why your work was more valid than someone reading from the Bible. You didn't reply, why is that? Could it be you know that when you answer the question "What, if anything, came before the BB" you do nothing more than make it up, just like religious people.

Let me be sure I am not just misinterpreting what you are saying? Is it your position that anything that is not formally submitted, reviewed, and adopted by the scientific community is made up like religion is made up, to use your words? At what point does a discussion about “before” the BB become legitimate? When is it OK in your view to talk about ideas? And why are you so set on converting my discussion to something other than that, i.e. why do you insist that my discussion of ideas are claims that I know something beyond BB that the world should accept without the formalization, review and normal procedures for acceptance? Do you really believe that I think such an approach would work and you are therefore called by conscience to alert the world to what I am doing so they won’t be duped? Aren’t you being a bit whacky if that is what you are doing?

The fact people doing general relativity have made serious attempts to address the BB in their work doesn't mean that you simply making it up isn't "Pulling it from your backside".

So serious people doing serious work means that when I discuss ideas that go beyond what has become the consensus of the scientific community is a good indication that I am pulling my ideas out of my backside. I see. I don’t agree. This is a discussion thread, not a “shove QWC off on an unsuspecting world” thread.

The fact someone else came up with a concept doesn't mean you giving your 2 cents on it is valid science. If anything, it's worse because you are simply looking for someone else's idea then putting your own spin on it.

OMG. I have never presented QWC as valid science beyond the line that QWC is ideas that are part of a discussion of “beyond” valid science. Once we get that straight ... then the ideas of QWC are connected and internally consistent ideas of how mass, gravity and the expansion of the universe could be connected by quantization of energy.

QWC is complicated and the physical picture is hard to explain to someone who is even interested. But to get through to a mind that is not prepared for a discussion of such alternative ideas is useless. I put you into that category and if an am wrong about that you should say so.

The ability to understand QWC cannot be conveyed, only the physical picture can be conveyed. If you have no intention to understand the physical picture, and you have not been asking about that, then I discount your obvious disapproval as being motivated by some agenda that I am not interested in.

It's speculation which you have zero basis for.

Let’s look at that. Accepted theory goes just so far. It stops there for reasons you fully understand. A single step beyond is to talk about the possible causes of the expansion that we observe. We are talking about speculation based on the observation that the universe is expanding and everyone knows that as far a science is concerned, there is a cause for that expansion. That is the basis. Please state if you understand that basis.

In my threads I have explored the various ideas that could result in the expansion that we observe. Go back a few years in my threads and read the discussion. Ideas about the cause of expansion were contributed and or drawn from different sources.

I personally thought that one of the ideas that were contributed was simpler than the others. That was the big crunch idea. Was I wrong in your opinion to include the big crunch as a step in QWC?

When GR people say "The universe is expanding" they do so because their theory has a quantitative description of the universe which implies its very likely to be dynamical in size and shape. Then they got evidence from Hubble. You have no working model, no derivations, no nothing. You simply saw someone else's idea and said "Oh, my work can do that!". Really? So QWC has a working description of dynamical space-time? Where is it then? It's less mathematically than the Einstein Field Equations? You mean those equations you don't know, don't understand and so just make up lies and bias about to kid yourself you aren't wasting your time? Those equations?

Now wait right there. You say that there are observations and evidence that the universe is expanding, and that standard theory doesn’t yet say what caused the expansion? And then you are saying I have no working model, no derivations, no nothing. You are saying that I simply saw someone else’s observations and evidence and accepted them? True.

Then you say that the way you interpret my discussion thread is that I am saying that my work can get the same observations and evidence independent from the observations that science has used? I didn’t say that. I am relying on the same evidence and observations to go a step beyond where the accepted scientific theories have taken us.

Now we get to the heart of the matter. You say that QWC is presented as a working description of dynamical space-time. If you are meaning that QWC has ideas about how quantization of energy can be applied to the observations and evidence to come up with the same results that mathematical space-time comes up with, maybe but I don’t claim that, and I don’t know. If that is true though, then QWC has to be a physical picture of the mathematics of spacetime. Do you have any physical picture of the mathematics of spacetime that I can use to compare?

It's irrelevant to the validity of your claims. Both Newton and Einstein predict perihelion precession in Mercury but one of them predicts the wrong amount and is experimentally excluded. See how this works? The devil is in the details. What's your basis for QWC talking about dynamical space-time? Where's the justification your work is anything more than you making up unsupported claims as you go along?

Nowhere.

OK then, put your money where your mouth is. When I asked what your view was about the possibility that the expansion of our observable universe was preceded by a big crunch you declined to answer. So you are not interested in discussing it. You say that it is irrelevant to the validity of my claims. My claims? I addressed that above, but I guess you say your view is irrelevant to any discussion that I may wish to conduct. Then we come to the agenda issue again. My thread is a discussion. You consider my discussion or at least any talk of views that are not presented to your satisfaction as not worthy of discussion? And you keep coming back because of your higher call to conscience to save the world from me?

Try to stay away or participate in the thread. Re-read the OP. Look at step one, the possibility that a big crunch preceded the big bang. If you disagree with that possibility say what you think is a better possibility. I already suspect that there is no possible relevant discussion of the topic as far as you are concerned. If that is the case then you are here for the wrong reason.

And then let’s talk about what QWC says is the cause of the burst of a big crunch. I’m sure you will find that just as satisfactory as the idea that a big crunch preceded the big bang, and that the future holds a really nice discussion in line with the intention of this thread as depicted in the OP. I am looking forward to your participation (and looking for a smiley of “gag me with a spoon” for future use).

…

OK, Prometheus says that after one of you two makes a post that rips me to shreds I come back with a bunch of mumbo jumbo to deflect the criticism. So here is the next step in QWC after the idea of a big crunch is introduced.

This is a preview of the idea that I offer for discussion about the cause of step two, the burst of a big crunch. Take your children from the room while you read this.

Leading to the big crunch there is a history of the mass and energy of a potentially infinite number of arenas in space that are similar to our expanding “universe” (our arena). Arenas themselves go through a physical process that I call “arena action”. In order for a big crunch to form, two expanding arenas have to intersect and overlap.

When those arenas overlap, the space that can be described as the “overlap of the two arenas” contains the galactic material from a segment of both expanding arenas. Are you with me? Those two arenas have a history, and going back in time, the history of each arena includes the burst of a big crunch as the phase preceding expansion.

And the phase before that is the formation of the crunch from the collapse of the galactic material that converges in the overlap of two arenas. The burst sets each arena into the expansion phase of “arena action”.

The momentum of the galaxies that form during expansion is said to be “expansion momentum” because all of the matter that makes up the galaxies has formed from the expanding energy that emerges from the burst of a big crunch. I call that dense state energy which means that no matter exists, just dense dark energy with expansion potential. That means that particles as they form during arena expansion have momentum and are moving away from each other.

So back to the formation of the big crunch. The expansion momentum of the galaxies in the overlap space is interrupted, allowing gravity to overcome expansion momentum. When gravity takes over from expansion momentum, a new center of gravity appears and the galactic materials mix and swirl into that center of gravity forming the big crunch.

As the big crunch grows, there is a core of matter that is under growing compression (due to the force of gravity). The core is where the seeds of destruction are planted that lead to the burst of the big crunch. The idea is that the compression becomes so great that mass can no longer function and the other idea is that gravity is a function of mass. When matter no longer functions, gravity ceases relative to the negated matter. Energy itself can exist without matter functioning though and that energy is getting compressed in the big crunch.

The energy of the negated matter is said to be forced into what I call “dense state” energy. It is just energy compressed in the core of a big crunch. You don’t have such a concept in your brain do you? Anyway, dense state energy has expansion potential. When the big crunch fails due to the decline in gravity and the increase in expansion potential of the dense state energy compressed at its core, the big crunch bursts into an expanding ball of dense dark energy.

If I can go by our previous discussion, you are now looking for the smiley of “gag me with a spoon”, right?



***************

 

[theoneiuse]

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2247566&postcount=30

Nowhere among your attempts to 1) establish yourself as an authority on all things that we [know or]do not yet know about science, or 2) your attempt to justify dedicating your career to string theory where you seem to be satisfied with the results, or 3) in the demonstrations of your character traits in regards to how far off topic you are willing to go to build straw men that you can use to attack anything but the ideas, or 4) your insistence that my thread be what you want [it to be or say it is] and not what it is intended to be, is there even one instance of addressing the ideas presented from the perspective that we cannot quantify them because we don’t yet have the ability to observe the physics taking place there.

Your general response can be summarized as saying that my ideas are worthless because we can’t quantify them. Whereas my general intention is to state my ideas in depth, and hope that some in the community will see something in my presentation that they find interesting.

For example the idea of quantum action described above which includes the idea that it establishes the presence of mass in phase 2, the high density spot phase, and it initiates the negative energy density that plays the determining role in the cause of gravity by creating a potential void in space as phase 2 occurs.

Your response is a call for quantification or for a framework or just simply a chance for you to refer to you credentials from which you know there is no merit to the ideas. This is the application of fallacious response number 1 and 4 as described above.

Another idea that could be of interest is the idea that as phase 4 occurs there is a quantum wave generated out of the energy that just prior to that had established the presence of mass. Mass was established by the high density spot, quantum action proceeded to cause the expanding spherical wave out of the collapsed quantum, and the wave expands spherically with an infinite reach in space as a wave crest following closely behind the wave trough generated by the void in space.

In my simple graphic of the wave form I tried to show the effect of the collapse of the space occupied by the quantum of energy as a trough in a spherical wave.

It is hard to show that graphically but the spherically collapse of the space occupied by the quantum of energy is the red portion of the spherical wave and the trough of the wave form. This is the “pull” that I refer to in the process of quantum action. The expansion phase is the green portion of the spherical wave which I show inside the red sphere to establish the order in which the spherical actions occur. The red sphere actually collapses to an incredibly small high density spot that has extreme energy density. This occurs in an instant, perhaps the shortest meaningful time in QWC. The collapse precedes the “bounce” that initiates expansion. The green sphere potentially expands out into the aether with an infinite reach. You can see that the graphic leave a lot to be said about the wave form but I present it for discussion. Questions could be asked about it and that would be on topic because such a question would lead to a discussion of the ideas and an exchange of ideas perhaps.

As the wave passes through the mass and before it reaches the aether that surrounds mass, that quantum of energy in the wave intersects and overlaps with adjacent quantum actions that capture some of its energy and delay it in its journey to the aether. That is called containment as I explained earlier in the thread. It is consistent with the time delay that is characteristic of the net negative energy emanation of the mass. Containment and the time delay are simple concepts that play a role in the cause of gravity, and they are directly connected to quantum action that also establishes the presence of mass.

These are ideas that I offer for discussion. It would be appropriate to discuss them from the standpoint that there is no evidence or quantification if it weren’t for the fact that I refer to that in the OP where I address the intention of presenting the ideas. So it is not only redundant to request quantification of quantum action, but I have addressed the lack of quantification in response to your repeated requests for it. Those requests fall into category 4 of the fallacious response methods identified above.

A more appropriate and on topic response might be to ask what the time delay and containment are or how they are important to mass or gravity. Or a person might ask how negative energy could even exist, or how a wave can be created by a collapsing sphere of energy followed by an expanding wave of energy, or any number of question that address the ideas.

Earlier I said:
You replied:
I said:

You said:
This is an example of a combination of several of the fallacious response types identified above. You went on:
Yikes, I said THAT? No I didn’t. That is an example of fallacious response type 3.

You went on:
Here is an example of fallacious response type 1 where you set yourself up as the authority on all science not yet discovered. Also it comes across as if your are saying that because you have a degree and are working on a PhD, that what you say about logic carries more weight than someone else’s logic. Maybe I should make that fallacious response type 5. It also has a ring to it that you are the final arbiter of what sound logic is and what faulty logic is. By your highness stating that I am not logical, that makes it so on the weight of your credentials. Chalk up another 20 crackpot points for yourself every time you use that fallacious response.

I’m trying to find in there where you address a particular idea and actually discuss it from the perspective that I offer the ideas as outlined in the OP. I can’t find anything on topic, just an accumulation of fallacious response types as identified above. Can you identify the fallacy types yourself or do you want me to do it for you?
But I didn’t actually say that, I said:


Do you see the difference?

You went on to say,

To clarify the difference between what I said, and what you say I said is a full time career.

However it is not difficult to see the fallacious response techniques you use. Can I infer that you are implying that I am equating QWC with QM? If so that is fallacy response type 3. Of course type 1 and type 4 come into play when you pass judgment that QWC is like invoking “God did it”. Why not show a particular idea and explain what it requires intervention from on high?

Let the future readers if there are any decide who has the high ground here. QWC and its predecessor, the ISU have been around for awhile and will out last you if history can be relied on.

In the earlier post I said and you quote me:

And you respond:

Read post #25 again and instead of ignoring it and then waving it off as not an acceptable “definition of quantum action” try to view it from the perspective that it is offered. That requires several steps. Read it, think about it, respond to it by linking to my exact words, and then say anything you want. I can defend what I have said and if I can’t I will admit it, and revise QWC correspondingly.

The perspective is that we don’t know what causes mass and gravity. I think there is a clear relationship between them. I suggest the ideas of QWC include a possible connection between the two and that connection is quantum action. I then explain what I mean by quantum action. I didn’t actually pull it out of my ass as you think, it was developed over time with input from others.

And then you say:
For God’s sake man, at least read this stuff before you wave it off. Fallacious response method 1 is expanded to include that you don’t even have to set eyes on my posts to use method 1 or 5. Who is invoking God here, me or you? I say it has to be you if you know what is written without reading.

In addition, I don’t know how to interpret your stance. It brings to mind the thought that you did not read it of course, or did you somehow pass over it without noticing it, or are you being uncharacteristically subtle to imply the even though I went into some detail on what I am talking about in the idea of quantum action, you wave if off as not being an acceptable description?

To which you say:
We’ve been through the lexicon thing. Those words are in the QWC lexicon and are therefore impossible for someone with so little knowledge of QWC to even fathom. Sorry, but maybe if you actually read some QWC you would have a better idea what the words mean.
I know about the theory. Mass is caused by extreme energy density at the earliest stages of expansion, and if you had read QWC you could see it is consistent. Only in QWC the cause of the extreme energy density is a big crunch. What is the cause of the extreme energy density in the Higgs theory? Please don’t wave this off since it is a serious question even though it is buried in the response to your off topic responses to my responses to your responses.
Fallacious responses 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Bingo. I knew you could do it.

I said and you quoted:

To which your replied:
At least response type 4. Do you see it? Make the thread into what you want it to be and if it doesn’t meet your expectations you insist I make it meet them? Read the OP.

You have no clue what energy density is because you think there is no aether. You think spacetime is curved and mass falls into gravity wells. You think that only God knows what caused the initial expansion of the universe and you probably don’t believe in God, though you seem to act like you are commissioned by God.
Yikes again. Make this thread into the preamble to the constitution or the constitution will never get written. You are using many fallacies here. I refer you again to the OP. What I am doing and why I am doing it is there. Your fantasy of what you want me to be doing and saying is off topic. I wonder if I can find anything on topic in your posts. If not, maybe there is a way that we can split them off into a new thread that belongs to you so you can characterize my ideas to fit your desires and still be on topic.

To which you said:

I grasp it. But you are using #4 again. This thread is about what I say it is in the OP. To make it into some road map for the future of science is you again applying your fallacious response techniques. My response is that I am not trying to guide or influence the course of science; I am offering ideas to the community here at SciForums that I want to discuss. If I can make them sound a little interesting and therefore get some discussion I am happy. Do I think the ideas are things that no one has ever thought of before? Not at all. I draw on ideas of others, I come up with ideas on my own that are similar, and some that are probably new, but I don’t know if they are or not for sure. Maybe in your role of knowing all science and science not yet discovered you have the inside track.

I said and you quote:

To which you reply:

I have been explaining that your questions are not related to the thread but are fallacious responses 1,2,3,4, and 5 as explained above. I have given some examples of your questions and responses and have contrasted them with the OP and what would be on topic and off topic. I have responded where the question was not based on a fallacious response type as I have identified above.

I said and you quote:

To which you responded:
At least you are consistent. I am only doing science to the extent that ideas play a role in science. I am not trying to dupe people into accepting something that I present as science fact and for you to imply that is among the fallacies I point out above. The ideas come from the sources I mentioned in this thread in response to your earlier statements.

I draw on ideas of others, I come up with ideas on my own that are similar, and some that are probably new, but I don’t know if they are or not for sure.

To expand on that statement, probably five years ago I started a thread on something like, “what if we started trying to explain the things we observe from the bottom up? There is a complete history of the development of QWC ideas on the internet and if anyone for some unknown reason wanted to go back to the beginning they would see how it was developed in a step by step fashion from a very basic starting point. That is five years of threads where I claim to have applied reasonable and responsible step by step speculation, where I offered the speculation to the communities and received feedback, and modified the ideas as I went.

I used to call what is now the process of quantum action just the result of a single pulsing elementary energy particle. It didn’t form in the overlap of intersecting quantum waves, it was just a pulsing energy particle called the EEP that had always existed. The EEP evolved into quantum action base on many discussions of science topics from many different presumably responsible science forum members. Of course there has always been the AlphaNumerics out there so though you think your fallacious response techniques are effective at driving off people who do what you say I am doing, pulling stupid ideas out of my ass, you missed the history of how QWC was developed, and you over estimated yourself in the process.

I used to call the universe, “The Infinite Spongy Universe”. It is very descriptive but in discussing arenas and arena action, concepts that were built from various discussions and brainstorming about a way that might explain how entropy is defeated, it turned out that if “arena action” was very similar to “quantum action”, and if the landscape of the greater universe was composed of arenas in various stages of “arena action”, then entropy could be defeated. The idea stuck and leads to many more ideas where details of quantum action were sparked by ideas about arena action, and ideas about arena action were sparked by quantum action. You probably missed where I have discussed the similarities, or blew them off. The name Quantum Wave Cosmology followed when the ISU seemed to be the old ideas. The update process is like the quality process, continual improvement is the goal. I know you have some witty remarks for every statement that I make that could be considered person to person. I am OK with my ways of presenting and saying what I think.

Defeating entropy is an important part of QWC. Do you understand why? No, because you never asked (and as you said, you don't care).

Most people understand the idea of a big crunch so that helps people understand quantum action. Some people who read and think about quantum action can better understand arena action.

You also have no conception of QWC even though you have read some of the words. You haven’t thought about them and that sets you apart from those who have intentionally contributed, but that groups you with those called by higher authority to weed out cranks and crackpots by waving your arms. Actually I know that technique works and I have been tempted to use it myself, but I was concerned that if I went in to a forum and played God Almighty, it might just piss people off and they aren’t inclined to discuss QWC even if there was something interesting about it if I did that. With you, I hope you get pissed off because you are taking the low road in dealing with me and all the others you claim to be attacking. You are unfortunately chasing away some fine young people who are just developing their own ideas. Mum and Dad would be so proud as Prom says.

I am working on Quantum Wave Cosmology, it is a set of evolving ideas that I freely share for discussion, and that I am continually improving on from outside input, like from you. You don’t’ really intend to help in the evolution but you are. And so did Prometheus, and so did every other “AlphaNumeric” out there that has confronted me with the typical put downs and clichés.

Not that how I developed QWC makes it anything more than my personal cosmology, but there have been hundreds of people who contributed in one way or another over the years, some like you and some actually who took some interest in what I was doing.

I guess you aren’t sufficiently amused yet. I assure you that you are only one of a number of people on the net that seem to think they are called by some higher authority to pass judgment on cranks and crackpots.



I assume that you are not done with me and will have some witty clichés and boring put downs to accompany your next response. Try to include some little helpful tidbits that actually are on topic and that apply to the ideas that are presented as QWC.

Let me quote from post #28

You flatterer you.

How I love the sequence charge interactions of human gaming. It is enevitable that a Frankenstein must emerge, for the objectivity of AI hides in the bushes like a lion stalking its prey. For all your artistic expressions is but a warning of evils we have submitted to because of our dying souls. The Unibomber once thought the world was easy, but he must face the logic of truth, that he is now weak. Sadamm Husein attempted to open the portal of ascension For he believed he was King Neberkenezer now he is once more dead. For we all know all the answears but lack the ability to communicate for this we will all suffer "The tower of babel" like Liebniz triumped over Newton but Newton was ''Prime.'' The ones who live on Jupiter and Saturn envy your kind they are Secondary life forms maybe even third class so they are jelous and pose as your Gods For they are not ''Prime''. They posses great powers of manipulation in simulating false realities in the human mind. and spawned the existence of the lizards for they are the serpents likened to vampires that live as a parasite depending on human existence they will eventually mine all the gold from your planet because they cant live with out it. So sleep light in your slumbers, for the day will come when you will be awaken.

 

[Xylene]

are though familar with the Babalon 5 series ?

Familiar in that I've heard of it, but I'm not sure whether it played on TV in NZ. Possibly it did some years ago, but on one of the channels I habitually don't watch.

 

[quantum_wave]

The very beginning of the ideas of Quantum Wave Cosmology
The key ideas in step one and step two:

The standard model begins at 10^-43 seconds after expansion of our observable universe began. There is no mention of what was before that.

QWC is about ideas of what might of have been before that.

Idea one is that the event that caused the expansion that we observe had its origin in a big crunch.

Idea two is about the greater universe that surrounded that big crunch.

Standard theory doesn’t address the volume or energy of the space from which our expanding universe emerged but certainly the implied size was from “smaller than a bread box” to a point in space, and the energy was at or approaching infinite density.

QWC has the idea that there was existing space and energy prior to the event, and that the greater universe that existed is of a nature that makes the described event a common event in the landscape of the greater universe instead of a single event that marked the beginning of space-time.

QWC has the idea that there is a limit to the maximum possible energy density.

QWC has the idea that matter requires space (sufficient space) to function and that when matter is compressed toward maximum energy density that matter is negated into energy.

QWC has the idea that matter ceases to function when it is negated.

QWC has the idea that gravity is a function of mass, and when matter ceases to function there are no functioning particles or waves and gravity ceases.

I would like comments about these ideas or related ideas that address the time of and immediately before the point where standard theory begins.

Obviously this is not a scientific discussion, just a discussion of the possibilities.

Do you think there was a “before” the Big Bang?

Do you think that the idea that the Big Bang was preceded by a big crunch has much merit?

Do you think there is a direct connection between mass and gravity?

The gist of the view offered so far is that it is irrelevant to talk about these things because we can’t know. I’m looking for people who have the personal make up that allows discussion of reasonable and responsible views about “before” the Big Bang. Am I alone in that interest?

 

[quantum_wave]

The basis of QWC, to respond to AlphaNumeric’s comment that there is no basis, is stated in the previous post. Science has limits but the physical universe is all there, complete, and consistent. Everything works together and everything is connected.

This effort to go back over the early ideas in QWC is also in response to Prometheus who says that I am just making this up as I go. Going back in the QWC process will give everyone a chance to reshape it or at least to understand what it is and what the ideas are as they stand now.

QWC is a physical picture being drawn step by step on the internet in various forums where ideas are offered, discussed, and evolved. These are “bottom up” ideas referred to as “reasonable and responsible speculation” and are not based on new observations or experiments. Existing science is accepted as the best we can do with the tools we have to work with, but QWC is a set of ideas of the physical picture of the universe starting where science ends and cannot yet go.

The big crunch is just one of the possible scenarios of what preceded the initial expansion of our universe. It is idea one in QWC but everything in QWC is tentative and open to revision. Come up with a better scenario and we will discuss it here. Until then, the idea is that there was a big crunch that burst in a time frame consistent with the 13.7 billion year history of our expanding universe.

Of course it is easy to go from step one to the next question. “OK, so our expanding universe was encompassed in a big crunch 13 or 14 billion years ago. How did it get out of the crunch and into expansion?”

And that is where the brainstorming went next; there was an event that corresponds to the Big Bang and if that event was preceded by a big crunch, the crunch was the source of our expanding universe. What caused the emergence? What exactly emerged, energy, particles, waves? What were the conditions at that time of the burst, hot, warm, explosion, burst of energy, etc.?

All of these ideas have been brainstormed in the past and QWC is the consensus of participants, sometimes by agreement and sometimes by my own selection. The more participation there is as QWC evolves, the better the evolved product.

Are there any comments on this post or the last post or about any of the early QWC ideas listed here?

~QWC has the idea that there was existing space and energy prior to the event, and that the greater universe that existed is of a nature that makes the described event a common event in the landscape of the greater universe instead of a single event that marked the beginning of space-time.

~QWC has the idea that there is a limit to the maximum possible energy density.

~QWC has the idea that matter requires space (sufficient space) to function and that when matter is compressed toward maximum energy density that matter is negated into energy.

~QWC has the idea that matter ceases to function when it is negated.

~QWC has the idea that gravity is a function of mass, and when matter ceases to function there are no functioning particles or waves and gravity ceases.

 

[RJBeery]

quantum_wave: I don't know enough about big-bang to be of much use here. I can only offer my intuition as to what "sounds plausible", and we all know that intuition frequently fails when it comes to Physics.

QWC has the idea that there was existing space and energy prior to the event, and that the greater universe that existed is of a nature that makes the described event a common event in the landscape of the greater universe instead of a single event that marked the beginning of space-time.

So it sounds like you are describing a cyclic Universe, which follows a series of crunches and bangs. Doesn't this necessitate that our current Universe must collapse? If so, do you have a theory that handles the evidence suggesting that it will expand forever?

QWC has the idea that there is a limit to the maximum possible energy density.

This "seems" reasonable to me. I have an preference for the idea that INFINITY is a man-made construct existing only in mathematics.

QWC has the idea that matter ceases to function when it is negated.

Is "negated" the same thing as compressed beyond the maximum possible density threshold?

Do you think that the idea that the Big Bang was preceded by a big crunch has much merit?

It has merit in that there are plenty of Physicists that subscribe to the cyclic nature of the Universe, aka the "Big Bounce"

Do you think there is a direct connection between mass and gravity?

The connection between mass and gravity is obvious but I'm just beginning to think about this subject. I will share more with you as I make more progress...

 

[quantum_wave]

Let me explain the steps and address your questions that way.

These are just ideas for discussion about the concept of a greater universe.

The concept of a “greater universe” is derived from the concept that a big crunch preceded the initial expansion of our observable universe.

There are various scenarios about how a big crunch could form. The method of formation was brainstormed with individuals and on the internet several years ago. Indications that expansion is accelerating were considered signs that unless something occurred to interrupt the expansion, the final outcome would be the heat death of the universe as entropy increased.

The reason for expecting that there is more to the universe than our lone expanding arena is based on the idea that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and so all energy has always existed. Over endless time it was concluded that if the final outcome of the universe was the “heat death” scenario, it would have happened already. Since it hasn’t happened the reasonable and responsible conclusion was that something interrupts the expansion of arenas and leads to the formation of new arenas.

What could interrupt the expansion of our observable universe? An intersection and overlap with another expanding universe was suggested and that idea leads to the concept of the “greater universe” and the formation of big crunches from the overlap of intersecting arenas.

My reference to existing space and energy means that the big bang was not the beginning of space and time. Within that space that has always existed, big crunches and bursts are common events. The commonality of crunches introduces the concept of a greater universe and is not meant to lead you to think of the concept of a cyclical LQC ( Loop Quantum Cosmology) type of universe. Instead it is a multi verse where each arena is similar to our expanding universe, but the arenas are in various stages of expansion, overlap, or collapse.

The greater universe is an important concept because it demotes our entire expanding “universe” to an insignificant arena in the arena landscape of a greater universe. We live in an insignificant expanding arena in a greater universe that has always existed and has always been characterized by a landscape where arenas form here and there across space and time in response to an “arena process”. There is a history of a potentially infinite number of different arenas that each began from overlaps of preceding arenas, formed into big crunches and then burst into expanding arenas in their own right in accord with that process.

Our expanding observable universe is a single arena, and all arenas are similar due to the process that causes arenas to form and burst into expansion. There are multiple but similar arenas in various stages of expansion and overlap at any time across the landscape of the greater universe. The greater universe is good ole fashioned 3-D Euclidean space that extends endlessly in all directions.

Arenas don’t collapse into big crunches in a cyclical fashion; they expand and overlap with each other. Picture our expanding “universe” encountering a similar expanding universe and envision them overlapping as they continue to expand.

The overlaps that are occurring all over in this landscape of the greater universe mark the origin of future big crunches. The effect of overlapping arenas interrupts the expansion momentum of each of the arena segments that are caught up in the overlap.

In the overlap, with expansion interrupted, gravity takes control over the mixing and mingling galaxies that find themselves in swirling rendezvous with each other as the two expanding arenas intersect. A new center of gravity forms at the center of the overlap space and eventually the galactic matter from the overlap of two arenas collapses into a big crunch composed of galactic remnants from the two contributing arenas.

This is similar to the formation of a black hole accept it is on a much grander scale. Whole galaxies swirl into the big crunch by the billions perhaps over a period of billions, maybe trillions of years, but the time frame is impossible to quantify since we can’t even see the entirety of our own arena.

The cyclic crunch bang you thought of (maybe like LQC) is flawed IMHO because each cycle fails to retrieve all of the energy from the previous bounce and eventually fails to have enough recalled matter and energy to cause the next bounce, resulting in a final impotent crunch. That concept pales in comparison to the arena process in the endless vastness of QWC. The bounce concept does come into play at the quantum level in QWC but let's get the arena level into your physical picture before we go to the quantum level.

Can you form a physical picture from what I have described?

I'd like you to think about it for awhile and not reject it until I have gotten to the juicy part related to the concept of energy density; that is the key to the concept of what makes a big crunch burst into an expanding arena. If time permits browse through the OP and the rest of the thread and maybe even the "Aether, mass and gravity in QWC" thread to get more of an idea, but do at least come back and comment on this post if you would.

 

[RJBeery]

Yes I think I understand. Do the arenas represent self-contained "4-spheres", where the overlap is dimensional, or are they just traditionally spatially separated yet "really far away" from each other?

Have you read much about the Great Attractor?

 

[quantum_wave]

Yes I think I understand. Do the arenas represent self-contained "4-spheres", where the overlap is dimensional, …

No. Space can be described as the set of physical points that make up the greater universe. As such, there is a physical coordinate system in three dimensions and every point has a description consisting of its location in three dimensions.

Arenas all start with a finite minimum volume of space that contains energy at the maximum energy density.

I am referring to the negated core of the big crunch. A big crunch is common to all arenas, and every big crunch has physical location and momentum within the greater coordinate system when it forms.

Thus an arena begins as a specific quantity of energy and all arenas begin with essentially that same discrete amount of energy, i.e. they are quantized in terms of the initial energy content and in the initial amount of space that they occupy. Every arena at the point that it is quantized is the sole occupant of that space and the energy in that space is the energy of a single arena. Its location can be described in three dimensions and at that point in time it does not intersect with any other arena physically.

Arena quantization is a phase (or stage) in the process of “arena action” which I am going to describe after I have answered your question.

But from the instant that the arena bursts into expansion, its parameters of space and energy become dynamic and what was a single arena in its own set of coordinates within the greater universe as it formed begins to overlap with other arenas.

As an arena expands there can be a four-space description of it where the fourth dimension is energy density, a value that is continually changing at all points in the arena.

An arena forms from the overlap of two or more expanding arenas and so the value of the energy density in a point within the overlap space will contain the energy density of both arenas. Technically, the physical content of the space called the “overlap” is described as the combination of physical contents of perhaps several arenas that have expanded spatially, i.e. the remnants of an untold number of previous arenas. Those remnants exist because all arenas expand forever or until a portion of their contents get caught up in a collapsing overlap (that is destined to become a new big crunch). The remnants of previous arenas can be whole galaxies, galactic remnants, dark matter, and energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation, dark energy, and anything else that can be described as energy as opposed to empty space.

In QWC there is no empty space because energy itself occupies all space. All points in space are said to have energy density and the energy density at any point in space is constantly changing. The energy density at a point in space is said to be fluctuating.

or are they just traditionally spatially separated yet "really far away" from each other?

From the above did I explain it adequately to give you the picture of how arenas occupy space and how they can intersect and overlap in space?

The concept of how far they are away from each other is interesting. They all form in the same way and burst into expansion at the same rate of expansion, and therefore they always have a physical association with other arenas. But the distance that they are apart ... that depends on the length of time that they have been expanding from the location in space where they originated. An arena can burst and expand for a short time and then intersect another expanding arena making the distance between them equal to the time of that expansion. The distance from the location of the origins of two intersecting arenas can be measured as the sum of length of time that each arena has been expanding.

The idea is that the expansion profile of each arena is quite similar. As a note, since we have evidence that our arena expansion is accelerating the idea in QWC is that the profile of expansion of an arena includes acceleration over time, perhaps explained by the varying forces of expansion momentum and gravity.

Have you read much about the Great Attractor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor)?

Yes I have over the years, and what we know and new things we are always finding out about our “arena” are fascinating. Do you make the connection between the great attractor and all of the identified content within our arena vs. the possible physical nature of all arenas on the basis that the history of each individual arena has a great deal of commonality? In other words can you envision a physical picture of the greater universe made up of a potentially infinite number of dynamic arenas that can expand and overlap?

I am not saying do you believe that picture . What I’m saying is that is the picture that I want to convey for discussion.

 

[RJBeery]

It's definitely interesting to think about!

1. Are there any unexplained phenomena that QWC purports to resolve? In other words...why was the theory developed?
2. It seems to me that after a finite evolution of this system the expanding matter would be evenly distributed to where there are no "pockets of nothingness" as represented in your diagram, even on the edges of a big crunch (unless the "crunch" progresses more quickly than the surrounding matter expansion?)

I'll have to give your explanation more attention later - I only had time to quickly peruse it...

 

[quantum_wave]

It's definitely interesting to think about!

1. Are there any unexplained phenomena that QWC purports to resolve? In other words...why was the theory developed?

Hi RJB, yes there are. As you may have noticed I get reamed a new hiney by the AN and Prom types because they say I can’t “Do Science”, so by even mentioning something that the QWC ideas could possibly resolve just brings on a new onslaught. I hope they attack me often because it always inspires me not to quit. Here are a few phenomena that apply to these beginning steps:

The cause of the Big Bang
The justification for the idea that a big crunch preceded the big bang, i.e. the way big crunches form
The existence of the greater universe and its role in the perpetual formation and potentially infinite expansion of each arena
The eternal history of the arena landscape of the greater universe that is characterized by the “arena process” that I plan to explain when I have answered your question
The defeat of entropy which will be explained when I have explained the arena process

2. It seems to me that after a finite evolution of this system the expanding matter would be evenly distributed to where there are no "pockets of nothingness" as represented in your diagram, even on the edges of a big crunch (unless the "crunch" progresses more quickly than the surrounding matter expansion?)

#2 two is a statement about the distribution of matter throughout the greater universe if I read it right, followed by a question about the relationship between the formation of the big crunch and the nature of the material that makes up the crunch. If that is a fair test of my understanding of your comment and question, then:

First, you are right that after a reasonable finite time there would be a fairly consistent background of arena remnants distributed quite evenly across the entire greater universe. But the way I view that is that the background that you are envisioning has always been characteristic of the background distribution because the greater universe has always existed and has always been homogeneous and isotropic on a grand scale.

It is the QWC equivalent to the cosmic microwave background and dark matter but for me to even say that invokes mainstream theories that I don’t defend. I do defend the ideas of QWC to the extent that I can answer questions, enter into discussions, and make revisions to QWC as a result.

In QWC, the background exists everywhere and yet the arena process is undaunted because it controls the formation and negation of matter. Matter is negated when it enters a big crunch. And in QWC, when a big crunch bursts into expansion there is a period of matter formation that follows shortly thereafter. That newly formed matter forms from the expanding ball of energy as the arena wave of energy spreads through the background. There has been some interesting brainstorming done about the constituents of the energy density environment during the matter formation stage of the arena process (arena action).

I cannot quantify the time frames when matter formation takes place, but the radius of the expanding ball of dark energy that emerges from a big crunch is always similar when the energy density of the expanding arena reaches the energy density that accommodates matter formation. If we know that radius, and if we know the rate of expansion profile, we would know the length of time that passes from the burst to the formation of matter within the newly expanding arena.

Both the negation of matter in a big crunch and the formation of matter during the early expansion of a big burst are controlled by energy density. Matter must be compressed by heat and pressure in a crunch to become negated into dense state energy and that occurs between the boundary of the high energy density limit in which matter can function, and the ultimate boundary of the maximum energy density possible.

I'll have to give your explanation more attention later - I only had time to quickly peruse it...

Take your time. If I post some things before you get back to it, I will always be able to come back here to where we left off. Be sure to come back to this point though if you have questions up to this point, because if I post more steps from here and if you jump over some of the steps you will not have the full development of QWC in a step by step bottom up process of reasonable and responsible speculation.

That has been the reason why AN, Prom, and a long line of others have seemed to have only a surface level of understanding.

 

[RJBeery]

That has been the reason why AN, Prom, and a long line of others have seemed to have only a surface level of understanding.

Well skepticism is probably appropriate for them and anyone else on this forum. It's hard to come up with relevant new ideas in any field that has been worked on for hundreds of years by thousands of brilliant minds. My problem with some of the people on this forum is with their attitude; it's condescension (which may be forgivable) PLUS a stifling criticism of any creative conjectures (which is NOT forgivable and contrary to the spirit of a forum such as this). Without creativity this entire website is reduced to nothing but a place to get your homework questions answered.

Back to QWC, I don't understand how the apparent Universal expansion can appear to be so uniform and unidirectional with all of these intersecting arenas. Also, I have questions related to entropy but you mentioned that you were going to expand on that.