The Fate of the Cosmos Isn't Necessarily Dependent on the Amount of Matter

[common_sense_seeker]

But to be up front, QWC is 3-D space with multiple and ever-changing arenas where time passes as a continuum that had no beginning and where everything is composed of energy.

That doesn't sound much different from my cosmic view. I have time before the BB and energy in an 'outside' dimension.

I guess you would say that WARG represents a finite universe with wrap around topography and repulsive gravity?

It's meant to represent my explanation for Dark Energy and the cosmological expansion. But what you say is correct.

As for Google, I do get a laugh out of it but I keep going back.

Same here. I was only refering to the 'hyperspace' google; what a mess that brings up!

We could be talking out our differences for a long time :argue

I don't mind. I've realised that my life isn't that exciting and I like having my emails to look forward to in the morning.

 

[quantum_wave]

That doesn't sound much different from my cosmic view. I have time before the BB and energy in an 'outside' dimension.

Let's talk out our views of "before the BB" then. I don't believe that something can come from nothing and I have been criticized for looking at alternative ideas about "before" and concluding that the big crunch made sense to me. I am told that the universe doesn't care what makes sense to me :bawl:. I stick with that idea though in QWC. Give me your views on before the Big Bang, i.e. what preceded it.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Let's talk out our views of "before the BB" then. I don't believe that something can come from nothing and I have been criticized for looking at alternative ideas about "before" and concluding that the big crunch made sense to me. I am told that the universe doesn't care what makes sense to me :bawl:. I stick with that idea though in QWC. Give me your views on before the Big Bang, i.e. what preceded it.

A build-up of matter that erupted spontaneously in one direction and also in the opposite direction i.e. momentum is conserved, with one spinning in one direction and the mirror image 'cancelling it out'. The energy comes from an 'outer' or 'higher' dimension. The energy begins as a simple spinning thread structure which grows long enough to start turning into a helix shape. This helix shape thread then acts like the initial straight thread and itself begins to turn into a helix structure, hence the references to fractals in my earlier threads. The spinning threads are also radiating small amounts of matter. These begin to form the same helix-like structure and therefore are able to induce a force of attraction. Eventually the two opposing mega-helices crash into one another, annihilating 90%+ and just leaving the observable universe we see today. Simple. (BBBB = Build-up Before the Big Bang)

 

[quantum_wave]

A build-up of matter that erupted spontaneously in one direction and also in the opposite direction i.e. momentum is conserved, with one spinning in one direction and the mirror image 'cancelling it out'. The energy comes from an 'outer' or 'higher' dimension. The energy begins as a simple spinning thread structure which grows long enough to start turning into a helix shape. This helix shape thread then acts like the initial straight thread and itself begins to turn into a helix structure, hence the references to fractals in my earlier threads. The spinning threads are also radiating small amounts of matter. These begin to form the same helix-like structure and therefore are able to induce a force of attraction. Eventually the two opposing mega-helices crash into one another, annihilating 90%+ and just leaving the observable universe we see today. Simple. (BBBB = Build-up Before the Big Bang)

That is a pretty good physical picture of what you visualize because I can begin to see its shape and how it evolves.

That brings us to the new physics necessary for our respective ideas. In QWC the new physics is that there is a limit to energy density. That limit is reached in the core of the big crunch. When mass is compressed to the limit, matter can no longer function. Gravity is a function of matter and when matter is negated, gravity ceases and the energy is converted to dense dark energy locked in the core of a big crunch. As gravity of the crunch declines the accretion into it declines while the negated core continues to grow. The destruction of the crunch occurs when the potential expansion energy of the dense dark matter compressed in the core overcomes the compression of the surrounding crunch and a big burst occurs.

What is your new physics if any?

 

[common_sense_seeker]

That is a pretty good physical picture of what you visualize because I can begin to see its shape and how it evolves.

That's a great compliment.

That brings us to the new physics necessary for our respective ideas. In QWC the new physics is that there is a limit to energy density. That limit is reached in the core of the big crunch. When mass is compressed to the limit, matter can no longer function. Gravity is a function of matter and when matter is negated, gravity ceases and the energy is converted to dense dark energy locked in the core of a big crunch. As gravity of the crunch declines the accretion into it declines while the negated core continues to grow. The destruction of the crunch occurs when the potential expansion energy of the dense dark matter compressed in the core overcomes the compression of the surrounding crunch and a big burst occurs.

What is your new physics if any?

I kind of agree up to a point. The term 'big crunch' generally refers to the end of the entire cosmos in a giant inward falling cataclysm. I don't think dark (energy) matter would form because it would too disorganised. I think that if it was held in compression, i.e. via space also contracting, then I would guess that it would slowly annihilate away into the 'higher' dimension. I think that dark matter only exists at the center of planets, moons and stars etc, and that it has a particular structure of maintained since Creation and therefore very organised (having a very low entropy ("the number of ways").

 

[quantum_wave]

That's a great compliment.
I kind of agree up to a point. The term 'big crunch' generally refers to the end of the entire cosmos in a giant inward falling cataclysm.

You are describing the big crunch that is one of the outcomes of BBT and GR; the one that is pretty much ruled out by accelerating expansion BTW. Let us say that I use the term big crunch in QWC in its lexical definition which means in the common usage of the term, while the big crunch of General Relativity fame is the “precising definition”. A précising definition reduces the vagueness and in GR it is more precise to mean that the entire universe collapses around a center of gravity.

The lexical definition simply means that the collapse of galaxies into a big crunch occurs until the maximum limit of energy density is reached. That occurs long before the entire universe falls in. That is why in QWC there is never a big crunch in the GR sense of the term. It is also why there is still a greater universe remaining out there even as the QWC big crunches form and burst.

I don't think dark (energy) matter would form because it would too disorganised. I think that if it was held in compression, i.e. via space also contracting, then I would guess that it would slowly annihilate away into the 'higher' dimension. I think that dark matter only exists at the center of planets, moons and stars etc, and that it has a particular structure of maintained since Creation and therefore very organised (having a very low entropy ("the number of ways").

Can we come back to this part? Let me think about it a little and get back.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

A build-up of matter that erupted spontaneously in one direction and also in the opposite direction i.e. momentum is conserved, with one spinning in one direction and the mirror image 'cancelling it out'.

Except that isn't how angular momentum is conserved, you've compared angular momentum about different axes.

Suppose initially you have the two identical helices at rest, ie not spinning, whose axes are parallel but separated by some distance. No angular momentum. You then spin them up so that each of them rotates about their respective axes at equal but opposite angular speeds. If the angular momentum of the first one about its own axis is L then by construction the angular momentum of the second one about its own axis is -L. But to compute the total angular momentum you don't add L and -L, because they are defined about different axes. Instead you must work out their respective angular momentums about the same axis, which will not be zero.

Do you know how to do this (given you claim to have an astronomy degree and angular momentum is central to such things as comet orbits) or shall I walk you throw it to show explicitly why you're wrong?

This is just another example of how you having no clue, even about basic things you claim to have covered at university, leads you to come up with utter nonsense. You assumed angular momentum conservation and then piled guess on assumption on speculation on ignorance and which is all utterly wrong because you were wrong from the beginning on that.

See what I mean about having uninformed imagination being so useless? You have absolutely no way to critically analyse any of your (and QWC's) speculations for even the simplest mistakes and yet you continue to think you're somehow benefiting from avoiding reading books or listening to anyone who might have any grasp of physics.

 

[quantum_wave]

That's a great compliment.

BTW, I am in favor of keeping this discussion on track so I will ignore any post that in my opinion attempts to derail the conversation. Are you OK with that? There are a few trolls who are fixated with me and follow me where ever I go.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

so I will ignore any post that in my opinion attempts to derail the conversation.

Except the point of my post is on topic. CSS talks about having 2 non-spinning systems which then start spinning in equal and opposite directions, which he claims is allowed because they conserve angular momentum as it sums to zero. It doesn't.

There are a few trolls who are fixated with me and follow me where ever I go.

Get over yourself dip****. I have a fixation with correcting people when they are wrong. And you and CSS are the two most prolific posters in Pseudo when it comes to pushing your own ideas so I end up correcting you a lot. If someone else posted what CSS said, I'd correct him or her. If Prom had said it I'd correct him (as well as be surprised he'd got such a simple thing wrong), as I'd expect Prom to do to me if I made such a mistake. Jesus you've got a massive ego, you think everyone stalks you and you think you're above correction.

 

[quantum_wave]

I kind of agree up to a point. The term 'big crunch' generally refers to the end of the entire cosmos in a giant inward falling cataclysm.

OK, I addressed that.

I don't think dark (energy) matter would form because it would too disorganised. I think that if it was held in compression, i.e. via space also contracting,

Here is a big difference between our views. In QWC space is infinite and doesn't expand or collapse, and has always been there.

... then I would guess that it would slowly annihilate away into the 'higher' dimension.

I picked up that was you thinking from your description when I asked about the new physics that leads from the crunch to the bang. Are you describing the separation of matter and anti-matter in the scenario when you say, "A build-up of matter that erupted spontaneously in one direction and also in the opposite direction"?

I think that dark matter only exists at the center of planets, moons and stars etc, and that it has a particular structure of maintained since Creation and therefore very organised (having a very low entropy ("the number of ways").

Give me a view of what you mean by Creation. QWC doesn't invoke the supernatural so are you saying your view has a supernatural beginning?

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Except that isn't how angular momentum is conserved, you've compared angular momentum about different axes.

You have the wrong mental picture. It is the same axis, only one going in +ve direction and the mirror image going in -ve direction!

Except the point of my post is on topic. CSS talks about having 2 non-spinning systems which then start spinning in equal and opposite directions..

No, I'm talking about the spontaneously erupting threads to be already spinning when coming into 'existence'.[/QUOTE]

OK, I addressed that.Here is a big difference between our views. In QWC space is infinite and doesn't expand or collapse, and has always been there.

My intuitive model can also be thought of in a similar fashion (but I suspect that space is expanding and contracting)

I picked up that was you thinking from your description when I asked about the new physics that leads from the crunch to the bang. Are you describing the separation of matter and anti-matter in the scenario when you say, "A build-up of matter that erupted spontaneously in one direction and also in the opposite direction"?

Yes, that's it exactly.

Give me a view of what you mean by Creation. QWC doesn't invoke the supernatural so are you saying your view has a supernatural beginning?

No, no supernatural being for me. I tend to think in geometric terms, but I can imagine how the religious community will readily adopt the divine creation version.

 

[prometheus]

If Prom had said it I'd correct him

Have a look at AN's posting history and you'll find that this has happened at least once (that I can remember).

 

[quantum_wave]

My intuitive model can also be thought of in a similar fashion (but I suspect that space is expanding and contracting)


Yes, that's it exactly.
No, no supernatural being for me. I tend to think in geometric terms, but I can imagine how the religious community will readily adopt the divine creation version.

In regard to the beginning, I go with "the universe has always existed" and you say .... "A build-up of matter that erupted spontaneously". Do you see that eruption occurring out of nothing, out of nowhere, like spontaneous symmetry breaking that divided "nothing" into matter and anti-matter? And then a scenario of annihilation that leaves what we call our expanding observable universe?

And do you say that space came into being at the moment of the build up of matter and before that there was nothing instead of my view that space has always existed?

And then do you see space and time coupled and warped from the beginning by the presence of mass? And is gravity the result of mass following the curvature of spacetime?

I see gravity having a physical cause which we might get to in our discussion. The operative idea is quantum action that causes mass and gravity at a level where the fundamental particles, say quarks that make up a proton for example, might each be composed of a large number of energy quanta where quantum action is continually occurring.

Just to establish a few basic ideas where we differ.

I see no beginning, I see big crunches forming and expanding, then overlapping, and new crunches forming from the overlaps in a process I call arena action where our observable expanding universe is a single arena within a greater universe filled with active arenas. And I see that same type of action taking place at the quantum level where each quanta expands and overlaps with surrounding quanta. The arena level is the macro view of the universe and the quantum level is the micro view.

Tell me if you think we have much common ground to start with and where we should start in convincing each other .

 

[common_sense_seeker]

In regard to the beginning, I go with "the universe has always existed" and you say .... "A build-up of matter that erupted spontaneously". Do you see that eruption occurring out of nothing, out of nowhere, like spontaneous symmetry breaking that divided "nothing" into matter and anti-matter? And then a scenario of annihilation that leaves what we call our expanding observable universe?

Yes, pretty much.

And do you say that space came into being at the moment of the build up of matter and before that there was nothing instead of my view that space has always existed?

No, I think our 3D space came into existence just before the BBBB. The energy came from a 'higher' dimension that has always existed.

And then do you see space and time coupled and warped from the beginning by the presence of mass? And is gravity the result of mass following the curvature of spacetime?

I don't think in terms of space-time and a 'fabric' at all. Totally NOT the mental imagery I use. It's all spinning Archimedean screw structures in my head.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

OK, you have WARG and I have QWC. I like the sound of yours and I guess mine should just be said Q W C. Otherwise it comes out sounding like quick and then the reference to quick sand looms out there

How about meeting half way and calling the events before the BB Archimedean Fractal Wave Cosmology (AFWC) and the time after the BB and the shattering of the mega-helices into one another as the Archimedean Quantum Wave Cosmology (AQWC)?? This fits with my mental piccies just fine.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

How about meeting half way and calling the events before the BB Archimedean Fractal Wave Cosmology (AFWC) and the time after the BB and the shattering of the mega-helices into one another as the Archimedean Quantum Wave Cosmology (AQWC)?? This fits with my mental piccies just fine.

Yes, because giving your navel-gazing vacuous nonsense buzzword ladened titles with fancy acronyms makes up for the fact you don't actually do anything other than randomly make stuff up.

Seriously, are you just being a bit comical deliberately or do you really think you're achieving something by just patting each other on the back and making up titles for ..... well you don't have anything other than your titles, what else is there to what you're doing? :shrug:

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Archimedean Fractal Wave Cosmology as the time before the BB and afterwards the shattering of the mega-helices into one another as the Archimedean Quantum Wave Cosmology works just fine.

 

[quantum_wave]

How about meeting half way and calling the events before the BB Archimedean Fractal Wave Cosmology (AFWC) and the time after the BB and the shattering of the mega-helices into one another as the Archimedean Quantum Wave Cosmology (AQWC)?? This fits with my mental piccies just fine.

I don't think we can compromise on a name, but what we can do is learn as we go. There is a good basis for QWC and the only reasonable methodology I have seen for speculation is put to work to draw together the best ideas from everything I have read. I do it without naming the sources or the theories they are drawn from because I don't defend those theories. I just accept what works with everything else in my bottom up process of speculation that has evolved over about six years on the Internet. It starts and includes the consensus and only deviates from the consensus if the consensus lacks answers.

We have to identify our common ground and that is why I am feeding you QWC and you are feeding me BBBB/Archimedeam.

Give me something on the topic of common ground so we can start from there, look at the consensus and do the speculation from a common starting point.

Did you get a chance to read my write up of QWC? Can you see any good common ground where we can say, "these are the things we agree on". That way we can look at the steps of speculation and where they lead and how we have gone in different directions. Key thoughts are that nothing comes from noting, a universe that has always existed defeats entropy, everything is composed of energy, and there are physics that have not yet been discovered that makes everything work together. QWC does that to my satisfaction but I keep improving it through collaboration on the Internet.

Read the write up and let's collaborate . Collaboration only works with people who share speculative ideas. When some self proclaimed smart guy does nothing but spout existing theory and fact that has alread been considered and that we know doesn't contain the complete answers yet, there is no collaboration and it is a waste of time. And you know how arrogant and obnoxious they get considering they haven't shared a single idea of their own: http://quantumwavecosmology.blogspo...d-max=2010-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=1

 

[AlphaNumeric]

When some self proclaimed smart guy does nothing but spout existing theory and fact that has alread been considered and that we know doesn't contain the complete answers yet, there is no collaboration and it is a waste of time.

When you keep getting basic principles or results wrong or make incorrect claims about mainstream, basic, preexisting theory the comments by 'some self proclaimed smart guy' are entirely relevant.

And if you can't grasp basic stuff I see no reason to engage you in discussion about speculative work whose entire existence depends on you developing it. You failed with the simple stuff, why expect any better on new stuff? :shrug:

 

[common_sense_seeker]

I don't think we can compromise on a name, but what we can do is learn as we go. There is a good basis for QWC and the only reasonable methodology I have seen for speculation is put to work to draw together the best ideas from everything I have read. I do it without naming the sources or the theories they are drawn from because I don't defend those theories. I just accept what works with everything else in my bottom up process of speculation that has evolved over about six years on the Internet. It starts and includes the consensus and only deviates from the consensus if the consensus lacks answers.

We have to identify our common ground and that is why I am feeding you QWC and you are feeding me BBBB/Archimedeam.

Give me something on the topic of common ground so we can start from there, look at the consensus and do the speculation from a common starting point.

Did you get a chance to read my write up of QWC? Can you see any good common ground where we can say, "these are the things we agree on". That way we can look at the steps of speculation and where they lead and how we have gone in different directions. Key thoughts are that nothing comes from noting, a universe that has always existed defeats entropy, everything is composed of energy, and there are physics that have not yet been discovered that makes everything work together. QWC does that to my satisfaction but I keep improving it through collaboration on the Internet.

Read the write up and let's collaborate . Collaboration only works with people who share speculative ideas. When some self proclaimed smart guy does nothing but spout existing theory and fact that has alread been considered and that we know doesn't contain the complete answers yet, there is no collaboration and it is a waste of time. And you know how arrogant and obnoxious they get considering they haven't shared a single idea of their own: http://quantumwavecosmology.blogspo...d-max=2010-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=1

I didn't mean to be rude, I apologise; I've got carried away with myself and forgot that you don't strictly acknowledge the Big Bang event, is that right? I've come up with a rival title to your Quantum Wave Cosmology...wait for it...Spring Theory (I know.........I said "I know")

I applaud your methodology :cheers: ; it's the same thing I did all those years ago. Did you feel that pseudoscience subjects were worthy of consideration during your study I wonder? (I included all the fringe topics, being influenced by things like Arthur C. Clarke's 'Mysterious World' etc, which I realised equated to looking at all the pieces equally for the first time in the first step to solving the ultimate goal, in the same way that I solved that jigsaw puzzle all those years ago)

Yet you are not completed. I've had this same experience more than once, where you think you have made the final step of a solution, yet later find there is years to go before completion. Take my own example where I've realised that I've made a mistake in asking my 'Egg or Bubble Theory of Creation?' question. Only after reading 'Dark Side of the Universe' by Iain Nicholson did I see that my terminology was inconsistent with the mainstream. I should have been aware that the 'bubble universe' generally refers to a multitude of different domains ('bubbles') within a single immense universe (his diagrams are worth seeing). I think that the same principle applies to your web pages. The onus is on you to learn the latest mainstream thinking in detail and then express your ideas in a language that hopefully anyone can understand. You seem to have done a considerable amount of work already incidentally.