The ISU, QWC, and EI updates for Pseudoscience fans

[quantum_wave]

Right, I think the formation of galaxies and the observed outward expansion of the universe would prevent PCP, unless there where galaxy formations outside the observable universe that did not correspond at all to what we see in the observable universe (like the forest through the trees example). *

That is what my model speculates. We are in our big bang arena and there are other big bang arenas. The "large scale" referred to in the PCP is the arena landscape of the greater universe in my model. It is a dynamic landscape that is always changing on the "less than grand scale", but those changes maintain the arena landscape as arenas form, play out, and as new arenas take their places.

I believe that over time galaxies will remain closely similair to how they are now in their formation, but they will mostly be expanded further and further away from each other. *This would not show the same consistency of the universe, rather if there are an infinte number of galaxies or not. *On the galactic scale the consistancy of matter would be roughley the same, but at the scale of the observable universe, (that would grow larger) the same number of galaxies would be further apart in that area.

I can picture it the way you describe. I have pictured it that way in the past. I changed my view gradually as I contemplated various ramifications of it which you might be kind enough to let me explain so you can see how my delusions have come about .

Edit: *I am not sure if the observable universe could actually grow larger, because the outermost parts of the observable universe is traveling away at the speed of light. *It is the space that is expanding FTL, so it is not the speed of light barrier I am concerned with, it is the ability for us to even detect an object traveling FTL even if it is traveling FTL along with the local space itself. *Then if the observable universe was not seen to be able to get larger, than there would be less galaxies in it over time as they where seen to hit the FTL observable universe barrier.

Edit #2: *It just occured to me that the observable universe could actually get smaller, if an object traveling FTL along with its local space became undetectable. *Since the rate of expansion is speeding up, the point where an object would go FTL would become increasing closer, although in the end there would be less detectable galaxies in the visable universe.

Before I explain the FTL aspect in my model I am in hopes you will confirm that you understand the large scale aspect of the model so you will know the macro view of my delusions .

 

[Prof.Layman]

That is what my model speculates. We are in our big bang arena and there are other big bang arenas. The "large scale" referred to in the PCP is the arena landscape of the greater universe in my model. It is a dynamic landscape that is always changing on the "less than grand scale", but those changes maintain the arena landscape as arenas form, play out, and as new arenas take their places.
I can picture it the way you describe. I have pictured it that way in the past. I changed my view gradually as I contemplated various ramifications of it which you might be kind enough to let me explain so you can see how my delusions have come about .
Before I explain the FTL aspect in my model I am in hopes you will confirm that you understand the large scale aspect of the model so you will know the macro view of my delusions .

Spit it out then, it couldn't be any crazier than trying to assume that each universe in the quilted multiverse landscape is only the size of a galaxy, lol. It is beleived that a suppermassive black hole is at the center of every galaxy. It could only mean that white holes have been mistaken by their jet cousins. I think it would allow a lot more Big Bang scenarios come back into the picture if it was the case. Like even, there is a black hole at the center of the universe, but it is only speculation after all.

 

[quantum_wave]

Spit it out then, it couldn't be any crazier than trying to assume that each universe in the quilted multiverse landscape is only the size of a galaxy, lol. It is beleived that a suppermassive black hole is at the center of every galaxy. It could only mean that white holes have been mistaken by their jet cousins. I think it would allow a lot more Big Bang scenarios come back into the picture if it was the case. Like even, there is a black hole at the center of the universe, but it is only speculation after all.

Are you confirming that you understand the grand scale, i.e. the arena landscape of the greater universe, and can therefore see why I invoke the PCP instead of the CP?

Does "spit it out" mean that you can see that my delusion is that the arena landscape is self-perpetuating, infinite, and eternal, and therefore complies with the PCP?

If so, can you confirm your understanding that my model includes the scenario of perpetual arena action that defeats entropy via its mechanics that bring about a matter-to energy-to matter cycle that plays out across the arena landscape. Each arena has the preconditions of being generated by the intersection and overlap of preceding arenas, i.e. there was no beginning, but instead the potentially infinite arena landscape has always existed?

Then do you acknowledge that the model includes the characteristic that each big bang event complies with the natural laws of the model, and as galaxies from separate arenas converge, gravity overcomes the separation momentum that galaxies exhibit within their own arenas causing the galactic material that enters the overlap space to accumulate around a center of gravity and a big crunch gradually forms from the galactic material provided by the individual parent arenas?

Do you confirm that you understand that the model features natural laws and mechanics that cause each big bang to occur when the point of "critical capacity" of the big crunch is reached? The model also features the concept that gravitational compression increases to the point where particles can no longer maintain their individual particle space and collapse, causing the big bangs?

If so, you can confirm that you understand the main features of the macro portion of the model and the reason I invoke the PCP, right?

 

[Prof.Layman]

I have already stated that I think the PCP is very unlikely and that the CP is far more likely to be a correct description of the multiverse. Do you mean to show that the arena landscape is similair to the landscape multiverse proposed in string theory? Or, is it more similair to the quilted multiverse of string theory? I think string theory has allowed PCP to come into more of its recent development, but I do not agree that it is more correct or closer to the true nature of things. I see it still as a far fetched abstraction. I don't see any reason why it should be anything otherwise. Like I mentioned before I think that string theory will run into big problems trying to invoke the PCP when it is applied to galaxies. If the cosmological constant is related to the number of alternate universes, then it could prove impossible to show that there are sections of the multiverse that are involved in a big crunch type of scernario. Then if the cosmological constant is shown to be related to the number of universes then it could destroy the PCP. Then there wouldn't be a reason for there to be contraction of many galaxies if the universe where open. That it has recently showns signs to be. Then one universe may lead right on in to another universe. Then a vast multiverse could exist in a state where there was just one big universe, like you recently described. I think that would be one way of getting into why there should be just one infinitely repeating universe. The mulitverse is the the universe, in a sense and the universe seems to be pushing itself to the limit on how far galaxies can travel away from each other FTL. So then no matter what size you assume these universes are, the evidence shows that the multiverse is expanding exponential from what we see in the observable universe.

 

[quantum_wave]

I have already stated that I think the PCP is very unlikely and that the CP is far more likely to be a correct description of the multiverse.

I know. Since you said that I was trying to show why I invoke it in my model, not trying to change your mind about it.

Do you mean to show that the arena landscape is similar to the landscape multiverse proposed in string theory?

No, for two reasons. What I read as a layman about existing theories is a far cry from being qualified to compare my delusions with any scientific theory, and secondly, from my layman reading I don't get a feel for the mechanics of String Theory because it is too mathematically rigorous for me.

Or, is it more similar to the quilted multiverse of string theory?

I admit that I am not even slightly familiar with the "quilted universe theory", but would gladly review a link that explains it to your satisfaction.

I think string theory has allowed PCP to come into more of its recent development, but I do not agree that it is more correct or closer to the true nature of things. I see it still as a far fetched abstraction. I don't see any reason why it should be anything otherwise. Like I mentioned before I think that string theory will run into big problems trying to invoke the PCP when it is applied to galaxies. If the cosmological constant is related to the number of alternate universes, then it could prove impossible to show that there are sections of the multiverse that are involved in a big crunch type of scenario. Then if the cosmological constant is shown to be related to the number of universes then it could destroy the PCP. Then there wouldn't be a reason for there to be contraction of many galaxies if the universe where open. That it has recently shown signs to be. Then one universe may lead right on in to another universe. Then a vast multiverse could exist in a state where there was just one big universe, like you recently described. I think that would be one way of getting into why there should be just one infinitely repeating universe. The multiverse is the universe, in a sense and the universe seems to be pushing itself to the limit on how far galaxies can travel away from each other FTL. So then no matter what size you assume these universes are, the evidence shows that the multiverse is expanding exponential from what we see in the observable universe.

Yes, and in my model there is just one universe. Stated simply, it is a steady state multiverse that complies with the PCP. Note that when I say it features big bangs and big crunches I hope you will allow my use of those terms even though I don't invoke Big Bang Theory. I do offer a layman view of the mechanics at the macro level that corresponds to the mechanics at the micro level which I describe under the concept of "quantum action".

 

[Prof.Layman]

I first heard about quilted multiverse, and landscape multiverse from Brian Greenes new book, Hidden Reality, I would reccomend reading it if you are into this sort of thing. I think they are some relatively new ideas, and it describes a lot of different multiverse models that seem to adhear to PCP. I think it was mostly an attempt to show conservation in multiverse string theories. I think they may have taken this conservation too far, and lost track what we observe to be the cosmological constant. I think this principle might actually prevent them from being able to find the cosmological constant in string theory. The principle in itself may directly violate the constant. The constant is that all galaxies are moving away from each other exponentially, not that an even number of galaxies are also contracting towards each other exponentially. If PCP where true, it makes it seem like the cosmological constant would have to come from more of an effect of conservation of the variation of the multiverse or universe. But, it is hard to imagine how the constant could be seen as just a variation when the universe is so homogeneous, because it is a pretty drastic effect on the visable universe, and it would mean that our part of the universe has gone to the extreme of expansion while maintaining homogeneity with respect to everything else. The principle just doesn't sit well with me because it doesn't fit the big picture on the movement of galaxies that I have read about. In Alan Guths Inflation, for example, he claims that the expansion of the universe if shown as negative that it could be conserved with the amount of matter in the universe. If that is true, PCP is an attempt at conservation then it may have just been applied incorrectly. The expansion would then have no need to have contraction in order to maintain conservation.

This paper talks about the homogeneity of inflation.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0702178v1.pdf

I lost track of Guths, 2004 paper, but I think that one talked about conservation in inflation, that I ment to link. I will try to find it. It was posted on sciforums not to long ago.

He talks about the energy of inflation and where it comes from at the end of 1.2
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0404546v1.pdf

Ah, the paper I was refering to that talks about inflation as a negative energy. 2001.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0101507v1.pdf

 

[quantum_wave]

I first heard about quilted multiverse, and landscape multiverse from Brian Greenes new book, Hidden Reality, I would reccomend reading it if you are into this sort of thing. I think they are some relatively new ideas, and it describes a lot of different multiverse models that seem to adhear to PCP. I think it was mostly an attempt to show conservation in multiverse string theories. I think they may have taken this conservation too far, and lost track what we observe to be the cosmological constant. I think this principle might actually prevent them from being able to find the cosmological constant in string theory. The principle in itself may directly violate the constant. The constant is that all galaxies are moving away from each other exponentially, not that an even number of galaxies are also contracting towards each other exponentially. If PCP where true, it makes it seem like the cosmological constant would have to come from more of an effect of conservation of the variation of the multiverse or universe. But, it is hard to imagine how the constant could be seen as just a variation when the universe is so homogeneous, because it is a pretty drastic effect on the visable universe, and it would mean that our part of the universe has gone to the extreme of expansion while maintaining homogeneity with respect to everything else. The principle just doesn't sit well with me because it doesn't fit the big picture on the movement of galaxies that I have read about. In Alan Guths Inflation, for example, he claims that the expansion of the universe if shown as negative that it could be conserved with the amount of matter in the universe. If that is true, PCP is an attempt at conservation then it may have just been applied incorrectly. The expansion would then have no need to have contraction in order to maintain conservation.

This paper talks about the homogeneity of inflation.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0702178v1.pdf

I lost track of Guths, 2004 paper, but I think that one talked about conservation in inflation, that I ment to link. I will try to find it. It was posted on sciforums not to long ago.

He talks about the energy of inflation and where it comes from at the end of 1.2
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0404546v1.pdf

Ah, the paper I was refering to that talks about inflation as a negative energy. 2001.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0101507v1.pdf

Thank you for the explanation and the links. So that is what quilted universe theory is about. I am familiar with it after all. Last year I started a thread to get help from the forum members to understand it and related papers in more detail. Laura Mersini-Houghton had written a current paper entitled "Is Eternal Inflation Eternal". I must have spent a hundred hours on that paper and the footnotes to get a good layman's understanding of it. Guth is reference many times in the footnotes.

Here is the thread for what it is worth: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...and-the-multiverse-possible-or-not&highlight=

And here is the Mersini-Houghton paper: *http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1106/1106.3542v1.pdf

You are right, it is very interesting. I developed some of my model from all the effort I put into getting a layman's understanding of those theories.

 

[Prof.Layman]

I can't say that I agree with the title of the paper. It sounds more like an attack on Guth's theory itself. But, then it states that inflation itself is not able to happen after t=0 if it was in a state of a singularity, that is no surprise. Seems like Guth is attempting to stear clear of having to make any such type of calculation, and trying to describe what we observe as inflation with completely different methods that do not involve having to explain an open singularity. Like Guth, I think it would be wise to avoid the singularity altogether. The evidence is all around us, and it clearly shows that there was a Big Bang and there is inflation. Then recent discoveries have shown that the universe may be open or will expand forever. I think a better title would be singularities don't allow inflation. I don't think Big Bang cosmology will go much of anywhere unless we are able to take the singularity out of the equation or even show that a singularity was not even present at the start of the Big Bang. Then if a singularity was not present at the moment of the Big Bang then it would have the same laws of physics that we have now! If Guth is right about inflation being negative energy in relation to mass then all the mass of the universe would not even have to be present at the start of the Big Bang and then a lot of the mass of the universe could come in later. So this has lead me to beleive that the Big Bang was composed of mostly pure energy that increased during the periods of burst of inflation of the early universe, the total energy being what was generated during all these burst until they stopped. Then it could stay a bubble, but I do not think the universe being a bubble during this period would mean that it is also a closed universe or the required mass to collapse on itself. I think the final mass of the Big Bang was acheived after it got to dense or large for energy to be able to travel around the universe so that it could no longer intensify itself and energy would have to be able to be created in such a similar fashion. In a way, the early universe could act as a perfectly closed system of "mirrors"(perfect reflection, with nothing standing between them), energy could travel around the universe and repeat the same path an indefinite number of times. I think this could cause a self interaction of particles, that would increase the amount of energy present. If inflation itself counteracts the amount of mass in the universe and the mass in the universe is generated by energy, then energy could be conserved even if there is free energy. I don't know if that makes much sense, but I don't think everything was always here eternally into the past (singularities), so then everything had to have come from somewhere or something shortly after the Big Bang.

 

[quantum_wave]

I have already stated that I think the PCP is very unlikely and that the CP is far more likely to be a correct description of the multiverse. Do you mean to show that the arena landscape is similair to the landscape multiverse proposed in string theory? Or, is it more similair to the quilted multiverse of string theory? I think string theory has allowed PCP to come into more of its recent development, but I do not agree that it is more correct or closer to the true nature of things. I see it still as a far fetched abstraction. I don't see any reason why it should be anything otherwise. Like I mentioned before I think that string theory will run into big problems trying to invoke the PCP when it is applied to galaxies. If the cosmological constant is related to the number of alternate universes, then it could prove impossible to show that there are sections of the multiverse that are involved in a big crunch type of scernario. Then if the cosmological constant is shown to be related to the number of universes then it could destroy the PCP. Then there wouldn't be a reason for there to be contraction of many galaxies if the universe where open. That it has recently showns signs to be. Then one universe may lead right on in to another universe. Then a vast multiverse could exist in a state where there was just one big universe, like you recently described. I think that would be one way of getting into why there should be just one infinitely repeating universe. The mulitverse is the the universe, in a sense and the universe seems to be pushing itself to the limit on how far galaxies can travel away from each other FTL. So then no matter what size you assume these universes are, the evidence shows that the multiverse is expanding exponential from what we see in the observable universe.

I don't quite understand everything you said but it might be because between us we have mentioned or linked to several papers and I don't know which one you mean when you say you don't agree with the title of the paper; is it Mersini-Houghton's paper, Is Eternal Inflation Eternal? Guth himself brings up that issue in the paper you linked to. But let me jump to your last statement: You said, "I don't know if that makes much sense, but I don't think everything was always here eternally into the past (singularities), so then everything had to have come from somewhere or something shortly after the Big Bang."

You are at a different place than I am on that topic. There is no scientific answer to the question of "beginning". The math of popular theories works perfectly and yet the theories don't work together, and there are theories that cannot be tested and yet are based on millions of man hours of effort. I have moved on, lol. I have developed my own model from the bottom up using my personal logic and my layman understanding. I have not been able to find evidence of something from nothing; nothingness is impossible to test so some say that it could happen but I don't buy that possibility.

That leaves me in a precise place that you may not be in sympathy with, but let me state what that is. If we can't get something from nothing, then everything has an infinite past.

 

[Prof.Layman]

I was referring to the paper, Is eternal Inflation Eternal? I have been thinking about it a bit lately, but I think PCP could become more of a prevelent principle if there is no free energy or energy is not canceled by inflation itself. Many theories have to show how they obey conservation laws, and I think a big difference between your model and my old model in a nut shell would vary in the application of conservation. My model is filled with many high hopes and broken dreams, and maybe even broken promises. But, I have considered it rigorously. I just found out this morning that the Eridanus Void may put a big cramp into my perspective. It may allow for your model to be able to be more easily described. I have based my own model on my own conception of particle precognition. Your model sounds similar to ones I have read about in popular books, so it may be seen as more scientific approuch in certain circles. I would also like to add that in one of Guths papers, he mentions that a universe that goes infinitely into the past could not have the same laws of physics before time zero. And, I think we have reached a scientific consensus that black holes or singularities cannot be described with our current laws of physics and that the singularity at the moment of the Big Bang would have different laws of physics. This would mean that a theory that claims to have conservation infinitely into the past would not have the same laws of physics all the time up to some time after the Big Bang, so then why should there be conservation even shortley after the Big Bang? This makes me wonder, do you think that just getting rid of the bubbles prevents a singularity in your model?

 

[quantum_wave]

:Humor: My model is like learning a foreign language. It has different words (and meanings) for everything.

A few examples from your last post:

Particle precognition: Please explain what you mean.

Inflation: do you mean the stretching of space or the superluminal expansion at the instant of the big bang? Do you consider inflation to be continuing or just during the first picoseconds? Space doesn't stretch or curve in my model.

Time zero: If there was no beginning there was no universal time zero. Each of the multiple big bangs would have preconditions, right? So there is a t=0 for each big bang arena but no T=0 for the universe.

New physics: The need for new physics is what stymies science professionals, but not layman, lol. It is obvious to me that new physics are needed to explain black holes, big crunches and big bangs and so I have introduced the necessary new physics from a layman's perspective.

In my model the physics don't change, they are driven by the conditions. The black holes, big crunches and bangs are extremes of wave energy density in my model that cause thresholds and limits to be reached that then initiate the physics peculiar to the conditions of high levels of energy density.

My model features a foundational medium through which wave energy traverses, and the amount of wave energy in a given volume of space defines the energy density of that space. Particles have synchronized inflowing and out flowing "standing wave energy" and high energy density relative to surrounding space which is filled with unsynchronized wave energy traversing all space between particles and coming and going in all directions; imagine the chaos at the foundational level .

Bubbles from the multiverse theories in the professional community would equate to arenas in my model.

 

[Prof.Layman]

Particle precognition is a description of an event that happens to electromagnetic energy that is traveling down a wavequide. It states that an electromagnetic wave will not travel down a half wave quide even to begin with under any circumstances. This effect is used in Radar Theory in the waveguide that is the transceiver. It prevents energy from the transmitter from going into the receiver even though they are traveling down the same guide to the antenna at some point in time. This is in contradiction to the laws of thermodynamics. For instance, I could remove the antenna and then just let the radar run with no where for the energy to go, no energy would then be detected traveling into the reciever. The electromagnetic energy will not evenly distribute.

I think this process is similar to the one described on this wiki in the section of Fustrated Total Internal Reflection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_internal_reflection

In the section fustrated total internal reflection (FTIR), it states, under "ordinary conditions" an evenecent wave does not affect conservation of energy. But then it says, However (that is a big however), the evenecent wave can be different than under "ordinary conditions".
So in the example I gave earlier of electrons being sent through waveguide in radar, one would think that the energy should travel down the half wave and then reflect out of sync half a wave. This is not what happens! The energy cannot even be detected to have even begun to travel down the half wave quide to begin with. It is as if it "knows" that it is only half a wave long before it even makes the journey. This is why I think there is a self interaction of particles that exist completely out of time, even for particles as massive as the electron that are only traveling close to the speed of light. I think energy is in a way being destroyed inside radar receivers that is comeing out of the transmitter. I think this type of work as described in FTIR has lead us to another conservation loop hole, besides particle anit-particle pair creation.

I have always seen inflation as being the stretching of space, and I think the evidence of the dopplar shift shows that to be the case. I may have used the term inflation losely to explain the inflation shortly after the big bang and the expansion of the universe afterwards. I think some new physics will have to come into play in order to describe the big bang more accurately(like the acceptance of FTIR), but I don't think the laws of physics have to have been different close to the time of the big bang.

 

[quantum_wave]

Particle precognition is a description of an event that happens to electromagnetic energy that is traveling down a wavequide. It states that an electromagnetic wave will not travel down a half wave quide even to begin with under any circumstances. This effect is used in Radar Theory in the waveguide that is the transceiver. It prevents energy from the transmitter from going into the receiver even though they are traveling down the same guide to the antenna at some point in time. This is in contradiction to the laws of thermodynamics. For instance, I could remove the antenna and then just let the radar run with no where for the energy to go, no energy would then be detected traveling into the reciever. The electromagnetic energy will not evenly distribute.

I think this process is similar to the one described on this wiki in the section of Fustrated Total Internal Reflection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_internal_reflection

In the section fustrated total internal reflection (FTIR), it states, under "ordinary conditions" an evenecent wave does not affect conservation of energy. But then it says, However (that is a big however), the evenecent wave can be different than under "ordinary conditions".
So in the example I gave earlier of electrons being sent through waveguide in radar, one would think that the energy should travel down the half wave and then reflect out of sync half a wave. This is not what happens! The energy cannot even be detected to have even begun to travel down the half wave quide to begin with. It is as if it "knows" that it is only half a wave long before it even makes the journey. This is why I think there is a self interaction of particles that exist completely out of time, even for particles as massive as the electron that are only traveling close to the speed of light. I think energy is in a way being destroyed inside radar receivers that is comeing out of the transmitter. I think this type of work as described in FTIR has lead us to another conservation loop hole, besides particle anit-particle pair creation.

Thank you for the explanation of particle precognition and FTIR. It is an interesting link that I have some thoughts about; perhaps for future discussion.

I have always seen inflation as being the stretching of space, and I think the evidence of the dopplar shift shows that to be the case. I may have used the term inflation losely to explain the inflation shortly after the big bang and the expansion of the universe afterwards. I think some new physics will have to come into play in order to describe the big bang more accurately(like the acceptance of FTIR), but I don't think the laws of physics have to have been different close to the time of the big bang.

Let me run this by you. We are aware of the relative motion of galaxies from the raw redshift data. That data then is modified to calculate the relativistic redshift. In my model there is no relativistic redshift and so the motion of the galaxies directly corresponds with the raw redshift data.

It shows that galaxies and galaxy groups are moving away from each other. In my model the relative motion of the galaxies and galaxy groups is a phenomenon of arena action. Each arena begins at its own specific t=0 that corresponds with the big bang of that particular arena. That event in my model is the violent collapse of the big crunch which causes an arena wave of energy that is the conserved energy of the particles that went into the preceding big crunch from the converging galactic material from multiple "mature" expanding parent arenas. A mature arena is simply one in which the galaxies have formed and have had "expansion momentum" imparted to them, and have not yet intersected with other expanding arenas.

How do galaxies get expansion momentum imparted to them according to my model? If interested, say so and I will describe how and why galaxies within a mature arena are essentially all actually moving away from each other instead of space stretching or being added between them. The explanation will include my layman delusions about new physics related to big bang events and particle formation during early expansion.

 

[Prof.Layman]

I ran into a big problem that I have tried to address before with poeple online about the movement of galaxies, they are not subject to spacetime dialation. If the "expansion momentum" as you put it is the only thing driving this expansion, then it leaves the problem of why are relativistic affects only local? I never found an answer to this question, and it currently seems to be outside the bounds of science. But, it lead me to an idea of Relativistic Inflation. In special theory, if an object experiences spacetime dialation, the difference of the locations of objects in space are not affected by spacetime dialation because the amount of spacetime dialation has varied. That is the founding principle of the theory. For example, say an object is traveling close to the speed of light but then assumes that he is at rest. He could say I am not contracted and everything else is just contracted all around me. Then he changes speed, and then he again starts traveling at a constant speed. Then he says, hrm, I have accelerated but then started traveling at a constant speed again that looks to be equally valid than when I was at rest before. But, then he notices something strange. Everything else around him is contracted at a different value. The difference between the two values of each time he assumed he was at rest is not subject to spacetime dialation, it was an effect of it within itself. Objects would be seen at different distances from each other, but then there was no observed effect from SR that the "appearant velocity" would indicate from observing the exchange between these two different positions. If this is true, than the expansion of space itself caused by the expansion of the universe could be very real indeed.

 

[quantum_wave]

I ran into a big problem that I have tried to address before with poeple online about the movement of galaxies, they are not subject to spacetime dialation. If the "expansion momentum" as you put it is the only thing driving this expansion, then it leaves the problem of why are relativistic affects only local? I never found an answer to this question, and it currently seems to be outside the bounds of science. But, it lead me to an idea of Relativistic Inflation. In special theory, if an object experiences spacetime dialation, the difference of the locations of objects in space are not affected by spacetime dialation because the amount of spacetime dialation has varied. That is the founding principle of the theory. For example, say an object is traveling close to the speed of light but then assumes that he is at rest. He could say I am not contracted and everything else is just contracted all around me. Then he changes speed, and then he again starts traveling at a constant speed. Then he says, hrm, I have accelerated but then started traveling at a constant speed again that looks to be equally valid than when I was at rest before. But, then he notices something strange. Everything else around him is contracted at a different value. The difference between the two values of each time he assumed he was at rest is not subject to spacetime dialation, it was an effect of it within itself. Objects would be seen at different distances from each other, but then there was no observed effect from SR that the "appearant velocity" would indicate from observing the exchange between these two different positions. If this is true, than the expansion of space itself caused by the expansion of the universe could be very real indeed.

You point out an interesting dilemma that makes me happy that my model does not invoke SR or GR, lol. I do not try to debunk the standard mainstream theories. I only explain the effects of relativistic motion and changes in motion in terms of my model.

However, if I understand SR a little, I think that Lorentz transformations from one frame to another end up in establishing the extent of time dilation and length contraction between the frames. The values of those measurements increases as relativistic velocities are reached but there are several things to consider. The motion, I think, has to be linear, there is no gravitational effect, and changes in direction and therefore variable velocities introduce entirely new frames and the transformations for each new frame are independent of the transformations for the other frames. That might be at the root of the dilemma that you are portraying. Clearly by way of disclaimer, I am a deluded layman so those statements are to be waved off and I won't attempt to defend them because I'm not trying to debunk SR. I'm just relating my comprehension of what you are relaying to me in your post.

However, in my model there is an entirely different explanation for time dilation and length contraction. I replace the curvature of space time with the wave energy density of the foundational medium. I propose to be able to identify the rest frame relative to the CMBR; any relativistic motion will cause the measurement of the background radiation to increase in the direction of motion and that should be discernible. If we assume that the rest frame is "at rest" relative to the CMB, then the moving frame and the rest frame are specific and not interchangeable.

Applying that concept to your dilemma would change the perceptions of motion and rest frames and result in a different set of defining data about the scenario that you describe, I bet.

When you think about relativistic motion in terms of wave energy density, my model also gives an entirely different scenario. For example, assume you are an object being gravitationally attracted to a black hole. The wave energy density increases as you approach the black hole because matter in my model is composed of standing waves with inflowing and out flowing components. The two components make the wave energy density very near a black hole very high because of the inflow and out flow from the black hole. As you approach the black hole you are traversing greater and greater wave energy density in space. Not only that but as you approach the black hole you are being accelerated by gravity and are subject to gravitational time dilation.

These effects supposedly give the identical mathematical results that you would get in GR. That is why I allow the mathematics of the EFEs to predict the relative motion of objects in my model but don't invoke GR; really a fine delusion if you ask me, lol.

 

[Prof.Layman]

So why energy wave density and not relativity? Do you think energy wave density could not warp spacetime? Funny, I have recently asked myself the question of how could energy wave density warp spacetime. I came to a blanck. It came from when I recently mentioned that photons that are intesified together with enough energy that would equate to the mass of an electron, (E=mc^2) that instead of having energy you now have mass. Then mass could be created by an energy wave density, like you say. Being a Professor of the Layman Arts, , I would then have to think that energy wave density would then have to warp spacetime in some way.

 

[quantum_wave]

So why energy wave density and not relativity? Do you think energy wave density could not warp spacetime? Funny, I have recently asked myself the question of how could energy wave density warp spacetime. I came to a blanck. It came from when I recently mentioned that photons that are intesified together with enough energy that would equate to the mass of an electron, (E=mc^2) that instead of having energy you know have mass. Then mass could be created by an energy wave density, like you say. Being a Professor of the Layman Arts, , I would then have to think that energy wave density would then have to warp spacetime in some way.

There is no spacetime in my model, lol. Space is potentially infinite and time simply passes. The measurement of time however is determined by the wave energy density of the environment of the clock being used. Light for example can travel further in one second through low wave energy density than it can through high wave energy density when measured by an observer in a rest frame. The measurement of the speed of light though is invariant within any given wave energy density environment because the clock slows down at the same rate as light slows down when the wave energy density increases. The clock slows down because the functioning of particles slows down as the wave energy density increases. If you increase the wave energy density enough, in a black hole for example, the clocks will stop and light will stop in my model.

 

[quantum_wave]

Some of the new physics in my model comes into play in regard to the "separation momentum" (also referred to as expansion momentum) of galaxies as opposed to the stretching and curving of space-time. It starts with the concept of "critical capacity". When the critical capacity of a big crunch is reached, the gravitational compression is at its peak of wave energy density. Above that maximum density individual particles have not only ceased to function as in clocks stopping and light not moving, but to top it off, particles cannot maintain their own individual particle space. It is their inability to maintain their individual particle space that differentiates a big crunch from a black hole.

The particles I am referring to are the particles that survive the journey into the big crunch from the parent arenas. As two expanding mature arenas intersect and overlap, a lens shaped overlap forms. The galaxies from each parent arena converge in the overlap space from different directions and gravity interrupts the separation momentum of those particular galaxies. The separation momentum up until that point was evidenced by the raw redshift data from within each arena. In the overlap space blue shift becomes prevalent as galaxies from opposing arenas converge.

The galactic material from multiple arenas collapses at the center of gravity of the overlap space, forming a big crunch. When the amount of galactic material reaches the critical capacity of the crunch, the existing particles collapse as they give up their individual particle space. That collapse is the big bang event which marks t=0 in the new arena.

Emerging from the collapse is a wave of arena energy equivalent to the sum of the wave energy that was contained in the big crunch. There are no individual particles left in the emerging arena wave because they have been negated into dense state energy at the instant of the collapse/bang.

The emerging dense state energy has the maximum wave energy density allowed by natural law. This ball of dense state wave energy is surrounded by the low wave energy density of the space from which the galactic material was accumulated, i.e. the overlap space. The wave energy differential between the emerging dense state wave energy and the surrounding low energy density space is the greatest wave energy density differential possible in nature.

Here is where I introduce the concept of wave energy density equalization at the arena level. In my model, the wave energy density in any given energy environment tends to equalize across that environment, trending over time toward energy density equalization in the given energy density environment.

To apply the energy density equalization law to the environment containing the emerging dense state wave energy from the crunch and the surrounding low wave energy density space, the expansion of the dense state energy into the surrounding space is natural and is driven by the extreme wave energy density differential.

It can be said that the dense state wave energy is inflated by the surrounding low density wave energy as energy density equalization begins to occur, but I would phrase it that the dense state wave energy intrudes into the low wave energy density space. Either way, the the vast differential drives the growing arena and this process of equalization that drives the intrusion into surrounding space is the "dark energy" in my model.

In the first few picoseconds the arena becomes a "sea" of dense dark matter as the ball of dense state wave energy inflates, lowering the wave energy density to the upper threshold of particle existence. When the density passes below that upper threshold, the expansion reaches the point where the wave energy density of the space is sufficient to allow individual particles to form and establish their individual space.

When those initial particle spaces are established they are sustained by the inflowing wave energy coming form every direction within the expanding ball of dense state wave energy. The conditions are met to establish the standing wave patterns that develop into particles.

The initial standing wave patterns have higher wave energy density than the space between them and that wave energy density differential grows as the space separating the new particles increases. These initial particles meet the minimum particle description in my model, i.e. they are various sized standing wave patterns described as disturbed space but without uniformity, without charge, without electromagnetic radiation, i.e. dark matter. Here is the key point: The initial dark matter clumps that form at this stage in the expanding arena have separation momentum imparted to them because they formed in the rapidly inflating early arena environment.

Gravity is initiated simultaneously with the formation of dark matter and these individual clumps of dark matter immediately exert and feel gravity among themselves. In this model the explanation for gravity is also new physics, not the generally accepted space-time explanation. Gravity is caused by a directional imbalance between the inflowing and out flowing wave energy of the dark matter clumps. The dark matter tends to accumulate in larger and larger clumps due to gravity while at the same time the entire sea of dark matter is still growing in volume as the arena inflates. At this point in the arena, the distance between the clumps is so small that gravity is able to overcome the separation momentum of the particles and so they continue to clump together to form standard particles, atoms, and light. The earliest atoms clump to form stars, and galaxies form from the first round stars.

Gravity continues to be able to overcome expansion momentum right up and through the formation of galaxies. But then, as evidenced in our own arena by the raw redshift data, for the most part galaxy clumping is complete, so we observe that essentially all of the galaxies and galaxy groups are moving away with their own separation momentum that has been conserved and imparted to them from the very first particles that formed in the new arena.

 

[quantum_wave]

Defeating Entropy

Follow up to my last extremely important deluded post: I think it is obvious to cosmology enthusiasts that increasing entropy is a characteristic of many models. Therefore, I should address how entropy is defeated in my model enabling me to describe it as an eternal, steady state, big bang arena landscape model.

I acknowledge that increasing entropy is not about energy itself which is conserved in my model, but it is about the usefulness of the energy in any given system. In my model each arena across the potentially infinite arena landscape can be viewed as a "closed" system for purposes of contemplating how the energy in the initial arena wave is used throughout the arena maturation process. Wave energy in the arena starts as a ball of wave energy at the maximum possible density. That is the point of lowest entropy.

Inflation uses energy as the ball of dense state energy intrudes into the surrounding low energy density space. Next, the most significant use of the dense state energy occurs as standing wave patterns initiate the formation of matter from the dense state wave energy. The wave energy becomes contained in particles and the particles have kinetic energy imparted to them from the inflating dense state energy. The wave energy contained in particles is conserved as the particles accumulate into stars and galaxies.

The separation momentum of a mature arena represents the net use of the kinetic energy on the one hand and the opposing gravitational wave energy on the other. These are the two major opposing forces in my model. Separation momentum exceeds gravitational attraction as the distances between galaxies gets greater and greater, allowing the rate of separation to increase. As separation momentum plays out in the mature stage of the arena, a vast amount of the initial dense state arena wave energy has been put to use and the galaxies are on their eventual rendezvous course with adjacent arenas.

When those rendezvous occur, separation momentum is interrupted by gravitational attraction in the overlap space. You will note that I identify the separation momentum within each arena from the raw redshift data that one would expect to observe in my model. You will also note that when I discussed the overlap space where arenas expand into each other's space, there would be a prevalent blue shift based on the expectations of my model.

Redshift in the expanding arenas equates to increasing entropy of the individual arenas, and the blue shift that begins to appear in the overlap space indicates that the defeat of entropy is about to take place.

As the big crunch accumulates galactic material contributed by multiple parent arenas in the overlap space, the standing wave energy and the gravitational wave energy contained in and maintaining the particles that make up the converging galactic material is gathering. That wave energy is about to be refreshed into a new arena wave of dense state dark energy. That event occurs at t=0 of the new arena in the form of the collapse/bang event. The energy density returns to its lowest entropy state, ready to play out again in the form of expansion, particle formation, gravity, radiation, and separation momentum as the new arena matures and fills with a fresh armada of galaxies, all with their own separation momentum, heading out for their future rendezvous with opposing galactic armadas (literary delusion license invoked).

Note here that if the universe was one closed arena, the separation momentum would trend toward the completion of entropy in the form of a final heat death or the Big Rip. But in my model the arenas are "open" systems in a boundless arena landscape. Entropy is defeated by the arena process going on across the potentially infinite arena landscape of the greater universe.

 

[quantum_wave]

Thought for the day: Why am I'm holding back on the really deluded stuff ...

Like the CMBR; what is it really and how did it get here? Given the fact that my model invokes changes to all of the preconditions of the standard cosmology and the particle model, what could I possibly say about the CMBR that would comply with current theory? Not much really, except for its observed characteristics.

We have no observations to go by that would tell us what a supposed big crunch would produce in a collapse/bang event as proposed by my model. Mainstream views are that the photon energy released at the instant of the Big Bang event was contained in the inflating universe through a period of faster-than-light inflation until the opacity of the universe declined enough for it to be released. That release didn't occur until the distant reaches of the universe were so great that the CMBR we observe has been coming from all directions out of those far reaches for 14 billion years and we have no reason to suspect it will stop coming any time soon.

By way of disclaimer, that view of the mainstream explanation for the CMB is my deluded layman understanding of one of the scenarios, and not definite science at all. I only mention it to set the stage for the explanation of the CMB from the perspective of my model.

The background we observe is not coming from the contained radiation of our collapse/bang event, and has not cooled as a result of inflation of the "soup" that made up our universe in the first moment, but instead has been out there all the time and we are intruding into space that already contained it.

It can be said that our collapse/bang event accelerated it toward us from outside or in my terms, our expanding arena intruded on the space that already contained cosmic microwave background wave energy from a potentially infinite history of arena action.

Our big crunch, which might have been billions of light years across at the moment of collapse, would have inwardly stretched the wave energy in the background surrounding the big crunch and thereby supercooled it for the brief duration of the collapse. It was at the instant of collapse/bang that our ball of dense state wave energy was born. The collapse of the big crunch resulted in a what I call a "bounce" or pass through as the collapse turned into expansion. When the collapse passed through itself, the in-rushing background wave energy encountered the whip lash of the "bounce" of our dense state energy as it emerged out of the collapse.

The stretched and cooled low energy density of the surrounding/inflowing background wave energy began merging with the dense state wave energy that emerged from our arena's initial event. In my model that inflow is a major contributing source of our observed background and it is what our dense state wave energy ball was inflated with.