The ISU, QWC, and EI updates for Pseudoscience fans

[quantum_wave]

What is the universe expanding into?

What is the universe expanding into?

http://www.deepastronomy.com/what-is-universe-expanding-into.html

The universe that they are talking about at the start of this video is not the same universe that I talk about in Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC). My model of the universe is called The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) and QWC describes the mechanics of the model in strictly layman terms. I often repeat the disclaimer that QWC is not science and is not supposed to be hints or clues to the scientific community. It is just that there are many questions that science cannot yet answer, and until they get the bugs out, my model simply presents my delusions about a cosmology that is internally consistent and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data.

The following is the narrative from the video with my comments inserted to differentiate my model from the standard model.

The Universe, as far as we know, is all there is. Physics provides no real way for us to ever look anywhere but within it. We are cocooned from any possible communication from other dimensions or alternate realities. Other dimensions may exist and there may even be a boundary to the cosmos, but so far, we've never observed anything remotely resembling one.

Of course my model agrees that the universe is all there is because that too is my definition of the word. And it is true that there may be other dimensions and boundaries that we cannot see, but my model excludes any other dimensions, and considers our universe to have no boundary, i.e. it is spatially infinite.

On very large scales, the universe is actually a pretty simple place: it has been around for a finite amount of time, roughly 13.5 billion years; it looks pretty much the same everywhere - galaxies are almost evenly distributed across the cosmos - everywhere we look we see about the same number of galaxies;

Here is where my model begins to differ from the standard view. I agree with the finite amount of time, but that time only applies to our big bang arena. 13.7 billion years is from t=0 in our big bang arena, and my model is a big bang multiverse where every arena has a t=0 in arena time, but the greater universe has always existed and so there is no t=0 universal time.

The standard model refers to the look of the universe as stated by the cosmological principle, i.e., "it looks pretty much the same everywhere - galaxies are almost evenly distributed across the cosmos - everywhere we look we see about the same number of galaxies.."

The difference is that in my model I invoke what is called the Perfect Cosmological Principle, which adds that the universe has looked pretty much the same for all time. That makes my model a steady state big bang arena multiverse.

My big bang multiverse features an arena landscape across the potentially infinite greater universe, and so though mature arenas like ours have galaxies that are almost evenly distributed within the arena, in the larger view there are "corridors" or ever changing spaces between the active arenas except where expanding arenas are intersecting and overlapping in the greater universe. The statement would read, "it looks pretty much the same everywhere - with many mature galaxy filled expanding arenas, some intersecting and overlapping, and some new arenas forming in the overlaps spaces where arenas converge."

Out of the converging arenas you would see some big crunches forming from the converging galactic material and some big crunches collapsing and bursting (big bangs) into expanding new arenas, each big bang starting the new arena clock at t=0.

... it is also big. Very, very big. And its getting bigger. The spacetime between all 100 billion galaxies in the universe is increasing. Like a roiling, seething froth, new, empty spacetime is being created as the universe ages, increasing the distances between the galaxies, pushing them apart.

Since the universe is expanding, it is a natural question to ask, what is it expanding into?

When we peer deep into the cosmos, we cannot see a boundary. So far, we have uncovered no evidence that a boundary exists. Space may extend to infinity or it may not, but in Einstein's universe things can be curved, and if things can be curved, they can be curved in on themselves, twisting and bending the shape of the universe into virutally anything imaginable. General relativity makes it possible to live in an infinite universe with no boundary at all.

Spacetime being added between all galaxies is the way the standard cosmology has of saying that the universe is not expanding into existing space, it is creating new space all the time and it is the new space that is causing the expansion.

My model doesn't have to invoke what seems to be the contrivance of new space. Being a layman, I am able to make my model bow to the intuitive, or I should say what I find intuitive, and to me space is infinite and has always existed, and is tied to energy that cannot be created or destroyed. In my model all space contains wave energy density in a foundational medium; some call it an aether.

Because of general relativity, spacetime is not a static entity. It is a dynamic and ever-changing fabric within which the locations of all galaxies are woven. Galaxies are not themselves moving very much, but they appear to move to us, because of new, cosmic real estate continually injected, increasing their distance from us.

It is this creation of new spacetime, and the rate at which it is being created, which determines how fast a galaxy appears to be moving away from us.

I know that is what they say, and it works nicely if the universe began ~14 billion years ago, and if the big bang created space, and if space has been dynamically adding new space since then.

If not, my model works as an alternative. It has preexisting space, multiple big bangs, a steady state arena landscape of the greater universe where arenas expand, mature by filling with galaxies, intersect and overlap, and it is in the overlaps where converging galactic material from the contributing arenas collapses into a big crunches and burst into new big bangs arenas.

You could say that I replace spacetime with an infinite foundational medium where matter and energy are composed of waves traversing the medium. Matter is composed of standing wave patterns in the medium, and gravity is the net directional imbalance between the inflowing wave component of the particle standing waves, and the spherical out flowing component. The directional component comes from other objects and the spherical out flowing component comes from the mechanics of quantum action which I describe in my deluded layman terms in my model.

So what is the universe expanding into? When new spacetime is created, into what do the edges go? The answer depends on whether or not there are edges.

If we live in an infinite universe, then the answer has to be nothing. Adding more fabric to infinity doesn't make more infinity. An infinite universe would have no edges that expand and the question is meaningless. In such a universe, there would be no 'outside'.

This section of the narrative explains that even if spacetime is being added to cause the separation of the galaxies, that could still be a fact in an infinite universe, because new space added to infinite space still equals infinite space.

My model too has infinite space, but new space is not being added between galaxies to cause them to separate. The galaxies form from the wave energy of the new arena, wave energy that emerges in the new arena out of the collapse/bang of a big crunch.

Matter forms from the dense state energy of the new arena, and in the standard model the matter forms from what some characterize as a hot dense ball that was present in the first picoseconds of the universe in the standard model.

On the other hand, if the universe is finite, with a boundary that we have not yet discovered, then the answer may be that we are expanding into something. If that is true however, then the boundary is so far away that we cannot see it and it can therefore never, ever affect us. We have already seen photons that have been travelling since the universe was only 500 million years old. Anything much further away lies beyond our detection forever. Given that our universe is expanding - if we cannot see the boundary now, this expansion guarantees we never will - it will forevermore get further and further away. it will always lie beyond our detection.

Not so fast there, lol. If we are expanding into something, there could be other big bang arenas like ours expanding into the same something; lets call that "something" preexisting space. Then you have my model and its potentially infinite arena landscape. If there were other arenas converging with ours the clues might exist in the WMAP data, and in fact there are anomolies in the data that some attribute to another arena intersecting with ours (check Dark Flow).

Only one hundred years ago, we had no idea there were other galaxies besides our own. It was thought that humanity and the galaxy we inhabit was an island, adrift in a universe of 100 billion stars. We now know that our universe is a vast, dynamic cauldron of activity: home to 100 billion galaxies, all racing away within a boiling ocean of spacetime. While we may yet find our universe is just an island, we have discovered it is much larger than we ever thought. (end of video)

My model describes a different universe from the standard model, but it is the same observable universe, the same Hubble view, but without spacetime, and with infinite space filled with wave energy density across a potentially infinite foundational medium.

 

[Prof.Layman]

My model describes a different universe from the standard model, but it is the same observable universe, the same Hubble view, but without spacetime, and with infinite space filled with wave energy density across a potentially infinite foundational medium.

The standard model doesn't use spacetime because it is particle physics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model I don't think the standard model not using spacetime really varifies that spacetime does not exist. For one, the mass of particles is just too low to really be detected with todays technology. If you can't accurately detect differences in mass then you can't develop an accurate theory on gravity. There is just little or no interaction of particles due to the effects of gravity in particle accelerators. GR more accurately describes things on the macro scale, so if you didn't use that and used Newtons Laws, then thinking it should bring about a more accurate theory would just be simply a delusion.

 

[quantum_wave]

Thank you for your participation, I has been fun.

The standard model doesn't use spacetime because it is particle physics. *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model*

I'm sorry to offend you, but paying attention is a big part of a discussion. I feel comfortable that if you had read my thread with the intent of trying to discuss and communicate, you would have realized that I know the difference between QM and GR, and that I know about the inconsistencies or at least the inapplicability of macro and micro theory. I have also stated my disclaimer and relied on being a layman, talking to a layman, in laymen terms, and taking laymen liberties. In my deluded layman terms, mainstream cosmology is the Standard Cosmology or what I also call the consensus cosmology. Also in my layman terms, the Standard Particle Model of Quantum Physics is referred to as the standard model. In my model I address both the micro and the macro levels of order and so I have to refer to both realms.

I am aware that I use the term standard model interchangeably to the chagrin of professionals but feel at liberty to do so with my intended audience; science enthusiasts in the laymen community. Your correction about spacetime vs. particle physics was an indication that our discussion is not going forward and so we may as well bring it to a conclusion. I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were pretty fed up with having to keep up with the discussion that I seem to be pushing and probably would not have responded further. If you do, please read the thread and accept the disclaimers; but really, you are off the hook if you want to be, lol.

I don't think the standard model not using spacetime really varifies that spacetime does not exist.

Of course not. I don't need it and have an alternative to it for reasons I have mentioned. I made it a point to say that I am conveying to you and the community what my model is, not what I think anyone on Earth will consider as material for a scientific paper.

For one, the mass of particles is just too low to really be detected with todays technology.

Of course. You should have picked up in my obvious understanding of that fact from the first reading of my OP.

If you can't accurately detect differences in mass then you can't develop an accurate theory on gravity.

There are a couple of things in that statement that are indications of our disconnect in intentions.

I am very careful not to call any of this "theory" and yet you do, and you do so as if you feel I am passing it off as theory. Let's be clear, I am very well aware of what theory is, and how it is based on evidence and testing, and subject to falsification. I'm not claiming I have evidence for any of my delusions. I'm just saying that my delusions as presented in my model are internally consistent, meaning they all work together hypothetically, in place of existing incomplete and inconsistent theories that are not intended for laymen. I am also saying that the model is not inconsistent with actual scientific observations and data.

That should not be the first time you saw me say that. It should also be a huge clue that the mechanics I call quantum action and arena action occur on scales too small or too big to observe. I am saying that if those mechanics were reality instead of my delusions, then the solutions to questions that science cannot answer would be included in my model. We can both be certain that I am wrong, but I did say IF. I explain the presence of particles and gravity, preconditions to the big bang, dark energy, dark matter, expansion. accelerating expansion, and various other things that mainstream has problems with. The lack of consensus answers in the mainstream is why I have a model at all, deluded as I admit it is .

Gravity in my model is a deluded hypothesis; I thought I made that clear. It was offered as ideas for discussion. If you reject the ideas you don't need to fall back on the approach of trying to make this thread about science and point out the departures from the scientific method, or take exception to the license I take in conveying my model, my ideas, and my discussion.

There is just little or no interaction of particles due to the effects of gravity in particle accelerators. *GR more accurately describes things on the macro scale, so if you didn't use that and used Newtons Laws, then thinking it should bring about a more accurate theory would just be simply a delusion.

Uh, aside from you insisting my model is theory for your own reasons, I think you grasp one point; the delusion bit.

This part is directed to the general membership (none of whom are likely to read it, lol): People who come with an intention of showing that I don't have science going on here, and deriding the content because they are looking for science or theory, have completely ignored what I have said from the very first post, or they have a hidden (or an overt agenda in Origin's case) of insulting and disparaging without any intention of friendly forum chat.

In the future I will limit my posts and thus reduce the aggravation they give some, and make you detractors happy by no longer posting in any other threads unless responding to someone who is responding to me, at least until there is some indication that the forum will become more friendly. I'll only respond to posts that are well intended and appropriate to the content. Future posts from anyone, and I don't think there will be many after explaining my position clearly like this, will be responded to if there is an indication in the post that the thread has been read and the disclaimers are an acceptable basis for discussion on a layman level. If I don't respond, you will know why.

 

[Prof.Layman]

I think people put to much infesis on the word theory, or law even. I don't think it is a good indicator of how valid a theory actually is. For instance, no matter how much they prove relativity, I don't think they will ever call it the Special Law of Relativity. Newtons Laws, have stood to be corrected, and yet they are still laws. The law of conservation of energy has a loop hole, but yet it is still a law. So I don't think we have come to the point where we must say that a theory is the "Hypothesis of _______". So I tend to use the word theory loosely, because calling something hypotheses instead just doesn't feel right to me.

I would have to admit it makes it really hard to get into the grand illiusion here when you don't accept relativity. I have spent a lot of time and effort trying to understand the theories, and I guess you can say that I am a relativity extremist. Some people that accept relativity only think it is an illiusion, but I think it is very more real than that. So then it is hard to just throw it out the window, and delve into ideas that are completely void of it. Sometimes I get people thinking that I don't accept relativity, by trying to explain why spacetime actually dialates from the equations. There seem to be a lot of people online that have different views on relativity so it is hard to pick out what group they are in.

I don't think it would be a good idea to make up your own laymans terms. I think you should try to use actual terms or the actual things you are trying to describe. Otherwise, it would make the reader have to refer to some type of secret code book or legend. Then it can be really hard to follow. This is why I was unsure of how much of the material you actually know. I think it would be better to explain what lead you to certain ideas instead of just laying them down as the final product. It can be very hard to chew when you reject accepted physics. Thanks for letting me off the hook.

 

[quantum_wave]

...

I would have to admit it makes it really hard to get into the grand illiusion here when you don't accept relativity. I have spent a lot of time and effort trying to understand the theories, and I guess you can say that I am a relativity extremist. Some people that accept relativity only think it is an illiusion, but I think it is very more real than that. So then it is hard to just throw it out the window, and delve into ideas that are completely void of it. Sometimes I get people thinking that I don't accept relativity, by trying to explain why spacetime actually dialates from the equations. There seem to be a lot of people online that have different views on relativity so it is hard to pick out what group they are in.

My model and relativity aren't as far apart as you might think, and when I say I don't invoke spacetime, I do replace every effect attributed to the curvature of spacetime by matter, with my models wave energy density of the foundational medium. And though it is hard sometimes to tell, my model uses energy density of the foundational medium to explain dark energy, dark matter, preconditions to the big bang, the mechanics of the big bang, the mechanics that establishes the presence of particles and gravity in the new big bang arenas, and more. It is the simple invocation of a foundational medium at a level below the fundamental level of the standard particle model that permits energy density to replace spacetime. It is the simple invocation of the foundational medium to enable the mechanics of big bang preconditions, big crunches and big bangs and they enable my model to explain the macro level of order, the separation momentum of galaxies, the acceleration of the expansion, and the source of the CMB. My model allows some contrivances of the mainstream theories to be superseded by internally consistent mechanics that do not violate know observations and data.

I don't think it would be a good idea to make up your own laymans terms. I think you should try to use actual terms or the actual things you are trying to describe. Otherwise, it would make the reader have to refer to some type of secret code book or legend. Then it can be really hard to follow. This is why I was unsure of how much of the material you actually know. I think it would be better to explain what lead you to certain ideas instead of just laying them down as the final product. It can be very hard to chew when you reject accepted physics. Thanks for letting me off the hook.

Thank you and I accept that as good advice, and I recognize you as a stand-up guy who responded to my request for stand-up members to participate.

 

[quantum_wave]

Dark Energy

Dark Energy

The issue with Arbitrageur in another forum where I first posted this boils down to "what is dark energy". He kindly posted a graphic showing the best scenarios we have and how the motion of the galaxies can be addressed under different combinations of dark energy and dark matter. The red line was the most recent addition and it was the line that represents accelerating expansion.

I see a skilled science professional in his posts. If not, he is a science enthusiast in the laymen community like me, but he knows mainstream science. Him being mainstream oriented and me being alternative hypothesis oriented leads to our disconnect on the cause of the "mysterious" dark energy.

I know his mainstream views, but he doesn't yet know my hypothesis, but from what I can tell I bet he wouldn't wave it off until after he heard it. Having him read it ... cool. So let me tell my view of dark energy.

My model is a steady state, big bang arena landscape model that defeats entropy and is in accord with the Perfect Cosmological Principle (PCP). The cosmological principle (CP) describes a homogeneous and isotropic universe on a large scale, and within the Hubble view of our universe, the large scale is made up of galaxies and galactic structure. The view changes as time passes because the galaxies are observed to be moving away from each other at an accelerating rate.

On the other hand, the PCP adds one characteristic to the CP. It adds that the universe on a large scale looks the same throughout time and eternity.

Clearly, if the mainstream invokes the CP, and I invoke the PCP, we are not talking about the same "large scale". In CP, large scale is galaxy related, and in my model, large scale is big bang arena related. I hypothesis that the universe is a steady state, big bang arena multiverse.

The difference between what we mean by "large scale" in the mainstream view and mine is what differentiates my model from any single Big Bang universe model.

It follows that the dark energy in the form of a cosmological constant, a.k.a. vacuum energy density in the mainstream model must be working entirely from within the causally connected space of the big bang, while my view allows the dark energy to be caused by a differential in energy density between high density of the big bang and low density of the space surrounding it in a greater universe. The hypothesis is that the mainstream universe occupies a tiny arena of space within a potentially infinite greater universe. If so, then the energy density of our arena is very high relative to the immediately surrounding space, and the principle of energy density equalization causes our arena to "inflate" as it intrudes into the surrounding space.

Even though the initial expansion after the big bang event is caused by energy density equalization between our arena and the surrounding space, there is another important detail that must be disclosed about my model before the story of the "mysterious" dark energy is complete. The matter that formed within our arena did so during early inflation and as the individual particles took shape, they had separation momentum imparted to them. Ignoring gravity at the first instant of formation, all of the new particles that formed in our arena were moving away from each other just like the raisins in the loaf of raisin bread as it bakes, and quite similar to how the galaxies are observed to be moving now.

But the story of dark energy still isn't complete until we define it as the force driving the accelerating rate of observed separation of the galaxies, and that includes the hypothesis that gravity and particles occurred simultaneously, i.e. particles "have" gravity (I will address the mechanics of gravity later). The fact that particles were formed having separation momentum and gravity is part of my hypothesis. Gravity is very strong in the close quarters of the early arena, and so particles clump together, atoms and molecules form and they clump together, and in my scenario hydrogen clouds form, and separate clouds of hydrogen gas collapse into stars, and finally the galaxies form having the conserved separation momentum of the particles from which they formed.

We know that gravity obeys the inverse square law, and so as the galaxies begin to establish their own space, the distance between them grows. The dark energy equation, if I had one, would quantify the balance between dark energy and gravity. It would gradually show separation momentum gaining the upper hand, and as a result, would quantify the observed accelerating rate of expansion or a range of values for energy density.

The mainstream "mystery" exists because the mainstream physics consensus does not have low energy density space surrounding the high energy density arena, and does not consider the physics where energy density equalization could drive the observed expansion.

 

[quantum_wave]

Dark Energy

Dark Energy

The issue with Arbitrageur in another forum where I first posted this boils down to "what is dark energy". He kindly posted a graphic showing the best scenarios we have and how the motion of the galaxies can be addressed under different combinations of dark energy and dark matter. The red line was the most recent addition and it was the line that represents accelerating expansion.

I see a skilled science professional in his posts. If not, he is a science enthusiast in the laymen community like me, but he knows mainstream science. Him being mainstream oriented and me being alternative hypothesis oriented leads to our disconnect on the cause of the "mysterious" dark energy.

I know his mainstream views, but he doesn't yet know my hypothesis, but from what I can tell I bet he wouldn't wave it off until after he heard it. Having him read it ... cool. So let me tell my view of dark energy.

My model is a steady state, big bang arena landscape model that defeats entropy and is in accord with the Perfect Cosmological Principle (PCP). The cosmological principle (CP) describes a homogeneous and isotropic universe on a large scale, and within the Hubble view of our universe, the large scale is made up of galaxies and galactic structure. The view changes as time passes because the galaxies are observed to be moving away from each other at an accelerating rate.

On the other hand, the PCP adds one characteristic to the CP. It adds that the universe on a large scale looks the same throughout time and eternity.

Clearly, if the mainstream invokes the CP, and I invoke the PCP, we are not talking about the same "large scale". In CP, large scale is galaxy related, and in my model, large scale is big bang arena related. I hypothesize that the universe is a steady state, big bang arena multiverse.

The difference between what we mean by "large scale" in the mainstream view and mine is what differentiates my model from any single Big Bang universe model.

It follows that the dark energy in the form of a cosmological constant, a.k.a. vacuum energy density in the mainstream model must be working entirely from within the causally connected space of the big bang, while my view allows the dark energy to be caused by a differential in energy density between high density of the big bang and low density of the space surrounding it in a greater universe. The hypothesis is that the mainstream universe occupies a tiny arena of space within a potentially infinite greater universe. If so, then the energy density of our arena is very high relative to the immediately surrounding space, and the principle of energy density equalization causes our arena to "inflate" as it intrudes into the surrounding space.

Even though the initial expansion after the big bang event is caused by energy density equalization between our arena and the surrounding space, there is another important detail that must be disclosed about my model before the story of the "mysterious" dark energy is complete. The matter that formed within our arena did so during early inflation and as the individual particles took shape, they had separation momentum imparted to them. Ignoring gravity at the first instant of formation, all of the new particles that formed in our arena were moving away from each other just like the raisins in the loaf of raisin bread as it bakes, and quite similar to how the galaxies are observed to be moving now.

But the story of dark energy still isn't complete until we define it as the force driving the accelerating rate of observed separation of the galaxies, and that includes the hypothesis that gravity and particles occurred simultaneously, i.e. particles "have" gravity (I will address the mechanics of gravity later). The fact that particles were formed having separation momentum and gravity is part of my hypothesis. Gravity is very strong in the close quarters of the early arena, and so particles clump together, atoms and molecules form and they clump together, and in my scenario hydrogen clouds form, and separate clouds of hydrogen gas collapse into stars, and finally the galaxies form having the conserved separation momentum of the particles from which they formed.

We know that gravity obeys the inverse square law, and so as the galaxies begin to establish their own space, the distance between them grows. The dark energy equation, if I had one, would quantify the balance between dark energy and gravity. It would gradually show separation momentum gaining the upper hand, and as a result, would quantify the observed accelerating rate of expansion over a range of values for energy density.

The mainstream "mystery" exists because the mainstream physics consensus does not have low energy density space surrounding the high energy density arena, and does not consider the physics where energy density equalization could drive the observed expansion.

 

[quantum_wave]

If you believe there are multiple universes next door to ours..*

Please call them "arenas" because in my model there is only one universe composed of the interacting big bang arenas that make it up.
But yes, there are arenas "next door to ours", and our arena had "parent" arenas that were "next door" to each other and intersected with each other to spawn our big bang arena out of their galactic remnants.

do you state that they may collide and interact with ours?*

Our arena is the result of such an intersection and overlap. "Collide" is not the best operative word because though galaxies do collide in the process, in my model arenas rendezvous, . They rendezvous into a swirling accretion at the center of gravity of the overlap of the parent arenas.

do all the potential universes outside of ours have the ability to interact with one another,, or if so can you conceive of a mechanism which would prevent them from interacting ( how can a universe be strictly contained?)?

The arenas can interact with their neighbors directly, and indirectly they will eventually interact with a broad swath of other arenas. The mechanism for such broad interaction has to do with the fact that a new arena always contains a certain "critical capacity" of galactic material and energy accumulated by gravity in the overlap space, and it bangs when it reaches that capacity, making all arenas essentially the same in energy. If you think about it, that means that if two arenas rendezvous then the new arena will come away out of the resulting big crunch/bang with half of the galactic content of the two, while if the rendezvous is three arenas, the new arena will form from a big crunch that all three "parents" contribute to. Since each new arena only contains the critical capacity, that leaves much of the content of the parent arenas to continue away from the overlap space via their own somewhat altered separation momentum. Those free galaxies no longer belong to a single mature expanding arena and become remnants traversing the "corridors" of space between active arenas. Eventually they will get caught up in subsequent overlap spaces and become part of some new distant big crunch/bangs, and thus an original mature arena will have contributed to innumerable other arenas across a wide swath of the greater universe.

There is no way in my model to contain an arena for very long, but I do call the big crunch stage of the arena's life cycle "containment" for the period of time it takes for the crunch to form and collapse/burst (bang).

*what I attempted to ask with my [strike through]silly[/strike through] arena in arena all the way down question was... how many universes side by side could there be,,,, and what would be beyond the most beyond one,,, would all of those be contained in an arena,, and what would be beyond that contained arena,,, its completely contrived and unknowable because the past is potentially infinitely ancient,,,

I think you will acknowledge that I "confine" my model to the two levels of order that are just beyond our ability to observe, the quantum level and the arena landscape level, but I would like to address a question that your statement brings up, i.e. Turtles all the way down (TATWD ) Turtles. TATWD is defeated by the energy density of the foundational medium in my model, and so I do dismiss it. The original TATWD is only vaguely defined as you can see from the link, but that doesn't keep wild enthusiasts from hypothesizing about the possibility. Since I invoke wave energy traversing the foundational medium, a particle becomes a standing wave pattern of wave energy with inflowing and out flowing wave components. The standing wave pattern is filled with high density wave energy but clearly not infinite wave energy. My point is that the wave energy to produce a whole operative universe in the space of a particle requires wave action at such an extreme that the standing wave of a particle in my model's quantum level would not be able to host all of that energy. Some would still say that waves can be infinitely small and object to my explanation, but if that is the case, my model is compatible with it but does not bother to invoke any level order below the quantum level.

You are so kind to ask such great questions, and I am interested in your views because I bet your approach to discussion has exposed you to a wide range of models.

Thought for the day: So I dazzle myself in singular way, not alone in my discontent about not knowing, but alone in my specific delusions of knowing.

 

[quantum_wave]

Another beautiful morning at the Maple Pavilion! This place is a perfect environment for concocting delusions about the nature of the universe and so I have some to add . I have been discussing elsewhere the nature of wave energy and the idea of the waves being concussion waves in the foundational medium, so I'll post this here to keep my Pseudoscience presence alive at my "sort of" home base over the years.

My opening post addressed spacetime vs. wave energy traversing a foundational medium. Whether you are a science professional or a science enthusiast, you are familiar with how current theory explains that the presence of matter and energy can cause a curvature of spacetime; a curvature that accounts for gravity. Though the effects are described mathematically, there is no physical explanation or mechanics, or at least no consensus as to how space curves or warps in the presence of matter.

That is why I started to hypothesize about an undetectable foundational medium that would cause the same effects that we observe as gravity.

Experiments had pretty conclusively falsified the luminiferous aether theory by the time that Einstein came up with the Theory of General Relativity, and the spacetime mathematics of Einstein's field equations (EFE) are extremely accurate at describing the observed and predicted motion of objects in space. And they are very accurate in general relativity for the same reason that they are very accurate in my model; wave energy density has almost the same effect on the motion of objects as the mathematical spacetime effect.

Any hypothesis about quantum level mechanics that would physically describe how gravity might work has to also describe gravity at every level of particle accumulation from the quantum realm right up to the macro realm of observable objects including planets, stars, and galaxies, i.e. one set of rules that apply everywhere. We cannot have two sets where one set applies to the quantum realm and one set applies to the macro realm as we have in current theory, i.e. quantum mechanics and General Relativity. My model attributes gravity to the directional imbalance of the inflowing wave energy component of a standing wave pattern vs. the spherical out flowing component; objects move toward the highest net wave energy inflow.

My initial hypothetical starting point is that there is a foundational medium that fills all space, and thus would affect all levels of order from the quantum realm to the macro realm. It is a simple starting point, but such a medium must not be our great granddaddy's fixed luminiferous aether which objects in motion were supposed to pass through. My view of a foundational medium fixes that problem by hypothesizing that wave energy traverses the foundational medium, and by hypothesizing that particles at the quantum level are patches of disturbed space that contain and maintain the presence of standing wave energy in quantum increments, i.e. standing wave energy with two components, inflowing and out flowing waves that are traversing that foundational medium. Particles are all composed of wave energy in quantum increments, and objects right on up to galaxies are composed of particles, so the quantum action that sustains the presence of a particle also sustains the presence of particles in aggregate.

It isn't hard to envision waves in the foundational medium, or to consider them the basic form of energy of the universe; energy that is imparted to everything else because everything is composed of that foundational wave energy.

But to think of the convergence of those waves as concussions, now that may be not be the first thing that comes to mind. But the way I think about it, if we have nothing to compare the perfect fluid to except that which can be prescribed as the singular most necessary component of the hypothetical realm into which we cannot observe, then we should not be surprised if that fluid has characteristics that allow it to function as it must. It then also is not an impossible concept that waves in the medium are all there is, that those waves must have a means to interact with each other, and so when they intersect and overlap, they are colliding.

But still it is hard to think of a concussion wave emerging from such an ethereal collision of almost no energy in almost no space in almost no time. But that is the basis for my argument that they are collisions. They do involve the clash of energy from opposing directions, the collisions cause a spongy overlap in the smallest of spaces, and the duration of the collision is a finite amount of time. The concussion emerges as the overlap compression is resisted and reversed by the medium at the point of intersection, reversing the directional flow of energy from the converging waves into a single spherical expanding wave of energy in the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU). Wave energy is conserved.

 

[quantum_wave]

Spherical equalization of wave energy density through photon energy relocation:

In my model a photon is a particle composed of standing wave energy that traverses the medium at the invariant speed of light. The medium is filled with wave energy in all directions, so you might think they would be slowed down by those repeated and continual collisions, and their advance would be limited to one tiny spherical wave increment after another. Am I saying that photons can still travel at the speed of light in spite of the time delay caused by repeated concussion waves emerging from those continual collisions as they advance?

Yes, they are slowed down to the invariant speed of light from what would otherwise be a potentially instantaneous transmission across empty space if it weren't for the fact that the foundational medium governs the speed of light between particles and objects. The medium only permits wave transmission to take place at one invariant speed relative to the specific wave energy density of the surrounding energy density environment. For example, in my model a perfect vacuum is a waveless medium, and I am saying that in a waveless medium a photon would travel at the maximum invariant velocity which would be almost precisely equal to current measurements in vacua, the difference being that a perfect vacuum is a virtual impossibility in my model and so no current measurements exist of light traversing a perfect vacuum.

Futher discussion:

Within particles and objects, the waves that make up the standing wave patterns that establish the presence of particles are traversing the medium at the local speed of light, but the time delay associated with the process of collision and concussion wave transmission in the particle space involves a time delay much greater than the time delay in open space, regardless of the energy density of the environment.

All waves originate from collisions and the point of collision establishes the center point from which the concussion sphere's radius expands at the speed of light. Within a particle the frequency of the collisions is so extreme, trillions and trillions more collisions occur every instant within the particle space than would occur within the open space between particles and objects. Of course the wave energy density of the open space is a factor in determining the relative velocity of light across that space, but even in the densest energy environment, particles are much more dense than the space between them.

Addressing the seemingly obvious contradiction:

But isn't it an obvious contradiction to say that photons are particles and yet they traverse the medium at the speed of light like unquantized waves would traverse the vacuum? Isn't it part of the rule of particle motion that particles need inflow from every direction and if they are moving at the speed of light, no inflow can catch them from behind? Doesn't that screw up all of the internal consistency of your model?

No, photons don't violate the particle motion rule, they maximize the directional rule. The rule is that particles move in the direction of the highest net directional inflowing wave energy. All wave energy entering a photon standing wave comes from the direction of emission, so the rule is not violated. In other words the time delay is at a minimum because the collisions and concussion wave advances are limited to one direction instead of from all spherical directions.

Describe the physical nature of a photon and the means of transmission:

Photons are produced by atoms and molecules that function as oscillating dipoles and always consist of a whole number of energy quanta equal to the number of quanta given up by the electron that emits them.

Electrons in those dipoles have a theoretical rest energy, and they have the capacity to absorb additional energy quanta from photons upon contact. The absorption of photons increases the energy of the electron and as a result, the energized electron occupies more orbital space around the nucleus. The function being performed, in my model, is referred to as the spherical equalization of energy density across an energy density environment, or simply photon energy relocation.

The number of quanta added to the electron can be released in increments by the electron, and the release is in packets of quanta equal to the number of quanta given up by the electron release. There is an ebb and flow of quanta between electrons which is the means of photon energy relocation throughout the given energy density environment.

The photon itself, a packet of quanta, is a standing wave whose inflow is perfectly one directional, and that means that all of the inflowing wave energy component is from the direction of motion. The photon therefore moves at the maximum rate allowed by the foundational medium, i.e. the speed of light.

 

[quantum_wave]

...

Describe the physical nature of a photon and the means of transmission:

Photons are produced by atoms and molecules that function as oscillating dipoles and always consist of a whole number of energy quanta equal to the number of quanta given up by the electron that emits them.

Electrons in those dipoles have a theoretical rest energy, and they have the capacity to absorb additional energy quanta from photons upon contact. The absorption of photons increases the energy of the electron and as a result, the energized electron occupies more orbital space around the nucleus. The function being performed, in my model, is referred to as the spherical equalization of energy density across an energy density environment, or simply photon energy relocation.

The number of quanta added to the electron can be released in increments by the electron, and the release is in packets of quanta equal to the number of quanta given up by the electron release. There is an ebb and flow of quanta between electrons which is the means of photon energy relocation throughout the given energy density environment.

The photon itself, a packet of quanta, is a standing wave whose inflow is perfectly one directional, and that means that all of the inflowing wave energy component is from the direction of motion. The photon therefore moves at the maximum rate allowed by the foundational medium, i.e. the speed of light.

I attempted a little graphic of the process of photon emission and transmission. This is one of the first depictions in my model of the concept and it may have a few bugs, so if you think it could be improved let me know ... :

#1 represents an oscillating dipole with an energized electron shown as a cloud in its orbital space around the nucleus.
#2 is a depiction of the emission of a photon as the electron orbit contracts toward the nucleus, giving up space and a corresponding amount of energy. See the photon being ejected.
#3 depicts the first collision of the photon with the inflowing wave energy. Since the photon traverses the medium at the speed of light, all of the wave energy that it encounters is coming from the direction of motion. The photon energy is refreshed from the inflowing wave energy and emits a spherical out flowing wave of energy (see off set 3a). The refreshed quanta of the photon move toward the direction of the inflowing wave energy and ...
#4 depicts the refreshed photon quanta relocated along the path of the directional inflowing wave energy.
#3 and #4 repeat themselves as a continuous sequence of collisions and concussion waves as the photon moves in increments along its path at the speed of light.

 

[quantum_wave]

Quantum Units Wild Guess updated for this thread

“In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete.” ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

In my model, which is not likely to have anything to do with a change in paradigm, lol, the proton’s presence (three quarks if you like) is literally composed of the high density spots that form at the overlap of the multiple quantum standing waves within the proton. It is these high density spots that preceded the concussion waves.

Concussion waves are spherical waves that are bursting out of high density spots (HDSs), expanding spherically, overlapping, and forming new HDSs within the proton. It is a continual process where the wave energy out flow that escapes the proton from the surface spherically (equal in all directions) is replaced by wave energy arriving at the surface (directionally) from the out flow of wave energy from other particles. Thus the presence of the proton is maintained by the inflowing and out flowing standing wave action.

Let’s say that we can freeze the quantum action process that has established the presence of a proton. That freeze frame will contain a finite number of spherical quantum waves in overlap positions within the proton. Each overlap is a high density spot in my jargon. There are a finite number of high density spots within the particle space where the spherical waves have overlapped at the moment of the freeze frame. That close configuration of high density spots (lattice-like) has stability because there is no niche on the surface for any additional surface quanta or high density spots in a stable environment, i.e. the surface wave energy out flow is equal to the wave energy inflow in a stable energy density environment, like at rest. (Increase the energy of the environment or accelerate the proton and there are more surface quanta and proportionately more total quanta, hypothetically.)

The question is, from what we know about the proton at rest, and from what I hypothesize about the process of quantum action at the foundational level, can we derive a ball park figure or even a wild guess of the number of high density spots (or shall we say quantum units) within a proton lattice? A quantum unit would be the foundational unit of energy in a universe composed of wave energy in a foundational medium, i.e. in my model.

In this exercise you might point out that the units of measure don’t work unless we define the whole exercise in terms of a new unit, i.e. a speculative “quantum compression unit” that occupies an average amount of space per quanta in the freeze frame or lattice view inside a proton. We are not talking about energy in joules for example because the units of measure wouldn’t work. We are talking about energy in quantum units. Each quantum unit is a quantum of wave energy, not only the individual spherical waves, but the high density spots that accumulate a full quantum and burst into new spherical waves. So the number of quantum units would be the total number of spherical wave intersections that are present as hypothetically represented by the high density spots that form and burst into quantum waves. Supposedly we could count the HDSs in a freeze frame of the proton, and if we could we would know the total energy in quantum compression units of a proton at rest.

This hypothetical exercise is to put some perspective on the number of energy quanta in a proton and an electron at rest to quantify my idea of the composition of a lattice of quantum units within a stable particle. For simplicity we will call these “average quantum compression units” which simply occupy the space within the proton; a quantum unit would consist of one high density spot at the overlap of multiple spherical quantum waves. This can also be thought of as the wave energy, in quanta, in a volume of space occupied by the proton, accounted for unit by unit in a whole number. I am suggesting the following widely speculative guess at the number of these quantum units within the space occupied by a proton.

I am using the approximate ratio of the rest energy of an electron vs. a proton, which is 1/1836, to equate the number of quantum units in the proton to the number of units in the electron which give me some basis for a calculation.

In addition, I am supposing that the number of quantum units in an electron is equal to the number of quanta at the surface of the proton for various reasons, but for this exercise that is just to have a relationship to allow us to do the calculations.

Area/Volume = (4 pi r^2)/(4/3 pi r^3) = 3/r = 1/1836,
therefore r=3*1836 = 5508, thus the radius of the proton is equal to 5508 quantum units.

4 pi r^2 = surface area of a sphere
4/3 pi r^3 = volume of a sphere
pi = 3.14159265

Quantum units in an electron = 381,239,356
Quantum units in a proton = 699,955,457,517

I'll just call it 400 million and 700 billion respectively, or even just hundreds of millions and hundreds of billions respectively :shrug:.

 

[quantum_wave]

I attempted a little graphic of the process of photon emission and transmission. This is one of the first depictions in my model of the concept and it may have a few bugs, so if you think it could be improved let me know ... :

#1 represents an oscillating dipole with an energized electron shown as a cloud in its orbital space around the nucleus.
#2 is a depiction of the emission of a photon as the electron orbit contracts toward the nucleus, giving up space and a corresponding amount of energy. See the photon being ejected.
#3 depicts the first collision of the photon with the inflowing wave energy. Since the photon traverses the medium at the speed of light, all of the wave energy that it encounters is coming from the direction of motion. The photon energy is refreshed from the inflowing wave energy and emits a spherical out flowing wave of energy (see off set 3a). The refreshed quanta of the photon move toward the direction of the inflowing wave energy and ...
#4 depicts the refreshed photon quanta relocated along the path of the directional inflowing wave energy.
#3 and #4 repeat themselves as a continuous sequence of collisions and concussion waves as the photon moves in increments along its path at the speed of light.

Work from quantum units

In the graphic I have depicted the collapse of the electron orbital cloud and the corresponding emission of a photon, one photon that has a specific amount of energy, and no frequency. We need a beam of photons to measure frequency, and if a light source emits a beam of light, and if the light is of a constant photon emission frequency, then the beam produced is a sequence of individual photons like the photon I depict in the graphic.

If true, then the values for frequency and wavelength can be measured from the beam. We know that energy of the photon can be calculated using h (Planck's constant) * frequency. That gives us the amount of work in joules per second that can be expected from a photon beam.

We do not yet know how many of the quantum units described in my model are required to make up that amount of photon energy in joules per second, but if we did we could determine the amount of work we could expect from one quantum compression unit assuming the internal quantum composition of the photon standing wave.

I believe that I could figure out a pretty good ball park figure just by knowing that it is roughly quantifiable, given my Quantum Units Wild Guess as to the quanta in an electron (~400 million at rest), the concept of the oscillating dipole/photon emission of my model (i.e. the mechanical relationship between the photon and the change in energy state of an electron), and known science related to the change in energy of electrons that emit photons and the work that can be performed in joules per second for electrons and photons.

It will take me awhile to refresh my memory on the science involved and I don't know if it matters that much given the deluded model, but I am open to estimates from the community . Who wants to take a stab at it, lol?

In the mean time, I'll just use 1 * 10^-50 joules per quanta for the fun of it. That has to be off by many zeros one way or the other but this is not science.

 

[quantum_wave]

Motion of Objects in the Medium

Just like I am modeling gravity differently from the curvature of spacetime in conventional models, I am describing light transmission differently from the standard self-propagating transverse electric and magnetic fields of electromagnetism. Conveniently though, I am modeling gravity and the propagation of light using the same principle of motion; motion is in the direction of highest net wave energy, which for the photon was depicted in the last graphic.

We have the relocation of the photon, one increment at a time, in the direction of the inflowing wave energy; essentially a one directional motion in response to a one directional inflow.

None of the other particles traverse the medium in a straight line at the speed of light. All other particles and objects*in relative motion always follow curved paths due to the time delay of gravity. The greater the distance between objects, the greater the time delay.

Time delay is simply a reference to the fact that out flowing wave energy from distant objects traverses the medium at the speed of light in ever increasing spheres until it reaches the local object. In that time, the distant objects have moved. However, the directional inflow points back to the location in the medium where the distant object was back in time, equal to the time delay. The incremental motion of the local object is in the direction of the net inflow, and that points to a place in the medium that is no longer occupied by the original source of wave energy. Never-the-less, our local object sets out in that historic direction as it utilizes the inflowing wave to refresh its own location by one increment per quantum period.

Naturally enough, the next wave to become the inflow of our local object was emitted from a slightly different location since the path of the distant object was playing out back in time. This slight change in the directional inflow allows the local object to make a slight course change, again directing it to a new, but still out of date location due to the time delay of gravity. Plot out a few of these tiny course corrections and you notice that your local object is following a curved path, even though each increment was in a straight line toward where the distant object was, if you play back the time delay.

 

[quantum_wave]

Overview of the Generative and Evolvative Forces of Life

Arena action of my model defeats entropy and perpetually produces galaxy filled expanding arenas throughout the universe where it is natural for stars with solar systems to host habitable planets and where the conditions are conducive to the generation of life.

Given the right mix of chemistry and environment, my model assures that physical iterations of all the finite possible combinations occur and the combinations for reproductive life inevitably arise. *Life is adaptive and evolvative, meaning that as early life takes hold, and as evolution occurs, life forms take full advantage of the hospitable environments across the host planet.

As evolution proceeds, natural characteristics that are the mark of advanced life forms develop, bringing them consciousness, self awareness, and individually developed consciences.

All highly evolved contemplative life forms across the Infinite Spongy Universe (my name for the universe - ISU), given sufficient duration to experience it, will share an inevitable course from their origin of natural generation to the culmination of high evolution, and with that comes the realization that all life is causally connected by the same Eternal Intent.

 

[quantum_wave]

That brings up the topic of Eternal Intent, which is what I call the philosophy that I derive from the model. In the early years of my contemplations I considered the various explanations for the existence of the universe and always seemed to narrow it down to three basic ideas: 1) God did it, 2) It came from nothing, or 3) It has alway existed.

There is no clear right or wrong answer and so it comes down to an individual view point, and having such a view point comes down to the conscious intention of the individual to actually define it for themselves.

I have done that for myself over the years and have shared the journey in my threads to some extent, and so if you care, you know my views. But I don't often elaborate on the details of Eternal Intent because one's personal views of life and living is not a popular internet topic by any means. I don't care that it is not, because I do this as much or more for myself than I do it for the community, but from time to time I like to post about it, and this is one of those times.

Let me state the nutshell version of EI so that I can philosophize a little about it in a few future posts. EI is the simple philosophy that the universe has always existed and is governed by invariant natural laws, many of which are as yet unknown. The first principle that I like to derive is that maybe God and the universe are one and the same, and that principle then lays before me the science of the known natural laws, and the mystery of the unknown natural laws.Within that mystery there is the possibility that if the universe has any characteristic of God to it, it is not only in the eternal nature of a universe that has always existed, but it is in the connection of the conscious, contemplative, free-willed, conscientious, highly evolved life forms with whatever God aspect of the universe there is; a connection that is made through the as yet unknown natural laws.

For me that connection takes the form of the possibility of seeking and receiving acknowledgements from beyond the boundary of known science and into the realm of the as yet unknown natural laws. Said simply, the faith and hope is that there is a connection that can be activated by the individual to experience acknowledgements. If it exists, Eternal Intent is there for intelligent beings to discover and use, seemingly derived from sound reason and logic that would be required to get you there. There is nothing to keep you from that faith and hope accept a fear of being deluded, lol, and you know I'm not afraid of that.

Eternal Intent is the natural common ground between all contemplative individuals. It is the highest standard for setting the correct rules of free and conscientious interaction. It is a characteristic of the universe, compatible with the natural laws of the ISU and with the concept that maybe God and the universe are one and the same. It is there for all of us as a source of hope and council throughout our lives, and for faith that the future can unfold as we would have it. It is there for us for free if we choose to use it.

The concept of Eternal Intent is the stimulus for highly evolved beings (humans in our case, human-like elsewhere I suppose) seeking acknowledgements from beyond the boundary of known science and expecting a response in accord with as yet unknown invariant natural laws.

I'll close this post with the thought that anything that seems supernatural has natural causes that we don't yet understand.

 

[quantum_wave]

With the groundwork laid in the last post, what I wanted to discuss was a philosophy of what causes us to interact with each other and what determines our form of interaction.

First, I suggest that there is the spectrum of individual self values. There is no clear right and wrong in any given set of circumstances aside from what we have learned through life, and so the individual often has to choose a course without clear agreement of others, or often with clear disagreement for that matter, and it is the individual's set of values that most often leads to their actions. So how different can those values be and how can we discuss them in generalized terms?

One way is define the spectrum of individual values with high spiritual values like helping others or following a religion on one end and high physical values like enjoying drugs/stimulants and promiscuity on the other; our options are phenomenal, lol. There is no absolute right or wrong set of values unless you have some connection to the Supernatural that I don't have, and so any set of values has equal merit from the perspective of any given individual; why wouldn't my views be as good for me as yours are for you? I equate it to conscience; this is not about societal imposition, this is about our self image, freewill, and conscience and where we fall on the spectrum.

The distinction between spiritual vs. physical is individually determined, and is quantified as those views that one holds as the self-image they strive for. Does the individual aspire to have high spiritual satisfaction or do they aspire to have high physical satisfaction, or some combination; we all float somewhere along that spectrum and each important action can be seen as a pushpin that defines us. Our set of pushpins is how others see us, and our conscience that is at work as we place those pins throughout our lives defines how we see ourselves.

Second, there is also a sphere of tolerance that can be supposed to characterize every individual even though many will not be able to define their precise tolerance levels because they are so subjective and their full range is rarely tested. We tolerate things from some that we wouldn't tolerate from others. The act of intolerance is very different form individual to individual, not only in regard to what we allow without objection, but also in how we react when someone crosses our line of tolerance. Our line of tolerance defines our sphere which encompasses what we allow others to act out as they express their freewill. When that line is crossed, perhaps by someone doing careless harm to us or others during their exercise of freewill, our tolerance is tested. How much careless harm can someone else cause to us or to others before we inject ourselves into the fray? That is determined by what I call the individuals sphere of tolerance.

I have defined the two spheres of action: our individual sphere of values on the spectrum from high spiritual to high physical values of conscience that determines our actions, and our individual sphere that determines our personal line of tolerance that causes us to react when others cross it. These are generalizations of the determinants of interactions between individuals.

When applying Eternal Intent we are applying faith and hoping for guidance and favorable outcomes to requests for acknowledgements from beyond the boundary of science and into the realm of the possibilities afforded us by the mystery of the as yet unknown invariant natural laws. The success of our individual approach to applying Eternal Intent in our lives certainly could be determined by the extent that our two spheres of action are in accord with equations that define the as yet unknown natural laws.

 

[quantum_wave]

Is it possible to be alone in the ISU?
Taking the last paragraph:
"When applying Eternal Intent we are applying faith and hoping for guidance and favorable outcomes to requests for acknowledgements from beyond the boundary of science and into the realm of the possibilities afforded us by the mystery of the as yet unknown invariant natural laws. The success of our individual approach to applying Eternal Intent in our lives certainly could be determined by the extent that our two spheres of action are in accord with equations that define the as yet unknown natural laws."

The talk of EI as faith based does not invoke the Supernatural because the faith is in the idea that within the invariant natural laws there are laws that govern consciousness and thought that we do not yet understand. If we understood those laws and the equations that could be derived from that understanding we would not be dealing with mysticism, so instead of invoking the Supernatural we would be saying that anything that appears Supernatural has natural causes that we don't yet understand.

What I called faith and hope in that quote could also be stated as a suspicion that there are forces at work that could produce outcomes in our lives based on thoughts instead of actions, and that those outcomes could be invariant natural effects of consciousness and thought via the wave energy of quantum action connecting the coherent aggregate wave energy presence of individuals within the foundational medium.

Invoking those natural laws without understanding them might be the same as an exercise in trial and error, and the feedback loop leaves much to be desired since any actual acknowledgement in the form of guidance and favorable outcomes to requests is so subjective that it is of value only to the individual experiencing it, and carries value for others only to the extent that they are willing to have faith in an individual instead of in the idea of there being invariant natural laws that can be put to use for our individual purposes. The faith in any individuals who might relate their success in applying EI is a completely different matter from faith in EI, and my philosophy shrugs at simply believing someone else on matters of EI; you must apply EI and experience the results for yourself to determine if it works for you given your set of spheres of action. And taking a position of faith or suspicion that EI may work seems that it would be one motivation for trying it.

It seems entirely reasonable to me to assume that there are invariant equations that all play together in an internally consistent interaction of natural laws that represent the interconnectedness of all events including conscious thought, and if so then it is safe to assume that our ability to invoke any existent Eternal Intent would be dependent on the compatibility of our sphere of values and our sphere of tolerance with those equations, but maybe that conclusion is an individual delusion on top of the undaunted delusions of my model.

But no, we are not alone in the ISU. In my philosophy we are all connected by the wave energy that emanates from us as we exist and think. Universal togetherness, whether agreeable or disagreeable, is in the effect our thoughts have on one another and on anyone and everyone within the speed of light sphere of our wave energy emanations through the foundational medium.

 

[quantum_wave]

The Universe, Infinity, Life, and Eternal Intent
Including how to invoke EI and what to expect (or what not to expect):

QWC, my model of the physical universe, involves the foundational medium and the conservation of wave energy traversing the medium, including the presence of matter and gravity, without regard to any consciousness that emerges from it. QWC can be thought of as the host platform that perpetually presents the hospitable environments and the conditions necessary for the generation and evolution of life in the ISU.

Where QWC leaves off, the generation of life from the non-living elements and the environment takes over, and given the finite number of combinations of elements and natural environmental changes over time, combined with an iterative process of chemical combinations, eventually the living molecule emerges, capable of replication and subject to evolution. To the extent that those habitable environments are existent for a sufficient duration as in any arena in my model, the living molecule evolves and adapts to potentially fill all of the available life hosting niches in the environment; and here we are, apparently at the higher end of evolution where our minds can discover and invoke Eternal Intent.

When you then think of a highly evolved living being in the context of the ISU, you are thinking of a coherent being, meaning something that retains its living presence in the foundational medium. In terms of QWC we are each a set of standing waves internal to the particles that are bonded in aggregate and are organized into a living being with consciousness and with senses and with the ability of thought and the motivation for action. Our senses are the benchmarks of life within the foundational medium and from that context of living senses comes what individuals perceive as reality.

Without life there is no perception or acknowledgement of reality, of color or heat, feel or touch, taste or smell or sound. Without life the ISU is simply Quantum Wave Cosmology characterized by the eternal motion of compression waves traversing the potentially infinite foundational medium. It takes living beings to quantify any aspect of the physical universe. We can say fundamentally that the universe exists, hosts conscious and contemplative life that thinks and exercises freewill, and that is characterized by individuals that interact with their environment and with other such beings based on individual sets of values and tolerances; a self evident reality that is axiomatic.

Let's say that you want to invoke the concept of EI in your life by seeking some worthy acknowledgement from beyond the boundary of known science. You would have to acknowledge that you do so by going beyond the boundary of known science and into the realm of the as yet unknown natural laws that govern consciousness and thought. That gets you to the starting place. From there it is easy.

Just do it. Say, "I seek an acknowledgement from beyond the boundary that would take the form of ..." and describe the outcome that you desire.

I don't predict much success if you start by seeking unearned wealth or undeserved rewards, but the arbiter of what is earned or deserved starts with you so who am I to judge what success you may have; my conclusion is that it could be related to your individual set of spheres of action that I have defined earlier. I maintain that the nature of your spheres of action needs to be compatible with the equations that represent the natural laws, and not knowing those natural laws or equations, we cannot know the necessary nature of our spheres of action that would trigger the desired natural response. Yours could be as good or better than mine.

Minimally it starts as a process of trial and error, and ultimately can lead to self analysis and a remake of your self image before you begin to feel that the feedback you get from your requests is meaningful. But if you start minimally, and if what you seek is worthy in the context of the natural laws, something that only the results can confirm, then favorable responses could begin immediately. If you insist that wealth or fame is your rightful destiny, then favorable outcomes might require some degree of self reflection and causative action over time, but if you just want to feel that you are being acknowledged every time you see a butterfly, then keep your eyes open and you may be rewarded by realizing that you are seeing more butterflies.

 

[quantum_wave]

Contemplating the mysteries of life

If I were to list what to me are the biggest mysteries of life I would include:

1) the explanation for the existence of the universe.

2) the origin of life.

3) the mystery of the purpose of life.

4) the grasp of the infinities of space, time, and energy.

5) the Supernatural; the existence of and nature of God.

My contemplations have focused on those mysteries and I have come to my own conclusions on all of them.

My conclusion on the explanation for the existence of the universe is that the universe has always existed.

My conclusion on the origin of life is that it is generated from non-living matter in hospitable environments through an iterative process that eventually produces a molecule that replicates itself and evolves to conscious beings.

My conclusion on the purpose of life is that individuals who seek purpose will find/define their own.

My conclusion on grasping the infinities is that anything finite is almost nothing, almost nowhere, almost never relative to the infinite.

My conclusion on the Supernatural and the nature of God is that God and the universe are one and the same, infinite and eternal and characterized by living conscious individuals that act and react with freewill based on their learned values, consciences, and tolerances. That means to me that nature is completely compatible with the concept of God and God is completely compatible with the invariant laws of nature; anything that seems Supernatural has natural causes based on laws that we do not yet understand. I suspect and have faith that the mysteries of those unknown natural laws are activated by the process of seeking and receiving guidance and acknowledgements from beyond the boundary of science; the equivalent to prayer utilized by organized religions and individuals alike. I attempt to define myself with a set of values and tolerances that I call my spheres of action that I try to live by, and to the extent that I live by them and make good choices in my actions and interactions, I have faith that the connection with the Eternal Intent of the universe surrounds me and enables me to take what comes in stride with common sense and grace.

Some points worth elaboration in that statement:

In regard to the learned values, consciences and tolerances; we are responsibility to our children in that regard. We must teach values and tolerances both by education and example. We must enable parents to get help in teaching values to their children if they seek help with that as many do, and those parents should have a full understanding of what values will be taught through Eternal Intent. My view is that the teachings of Eternal Intent in the education of children would have common ground that could be seen as productive and helpful to many parents within and without organized religions. I'm not proposing a government program; I'm wishing that EI was widely understood and that there was some way to implement a program that was widely accepted and supported and that taught values that are common among all religions.

In regard to the nature of God; In Eternal Intent, God is the sum of our natural environment and of the actions and interactions of living free-willed individuals, and so the concepts that God is Love and God is Good are the highest hopes and expectations that we might wish that all people would emulate, but we know by experience that not all individuals live by the highest virtues at all times. Therefore the religious representation of God and my representation are different, and though my view has a supposed foundation in the invariant natural laws, and my representation does not carry the religious doctrines that characterize the organized religions, I have no desire to refute the view of God as Love and Good. However, I oppose the view of "my God is better than your God", and "my religion teaches our children that our version of God is the only true path in life and death", and I do desire to refute religious versions of God in those respects. Not all organized religions can be right, and my view is that Eternal Intent is the best common ground among all religions that convey a God concept. EI can be right in spite of all the other views because no religion is excluded from the realm of Eternal Intent, while most religions exclude the view of many other religions.