bogie

What do you mean a "stationary clock"?. Do you mean "at rest"? If so, what is it at rest relative to? Do you mean that another clock is in motion relative to the rest clock, because either clock can be thought of at rest, relative to the other clock, or relative to any other object in the universe. I believe you mean that the first clock is at rest relative to the second clock, right? Do you mean for these passing clocks to be a third case, where case one establishes one rest clock, and case two establishes as second clock that is in motion relative to the rest clock, and then case three seems like it would be a new case with two non-stationary clocks in relative motion to each other, and perhaps in motion to some common rest position? It is possible because there is no absolute position in space. Every location in space is considered to be in motion relative to every other position. How would you define a position that is occupied by a stationary clock? I would like to hear if your description includes anything about relative motion of all other positions, relative to your described stationary position. I don't disagree with that equation, but it requires two values, energy, and volume. Define energy in the context of your equation, and then I will be able to describe the difference between how you are defining the "energy" variable in the equation, vs. my definition of "wave energy" and "wave energy density", both of which may be entirely different than how you define the "energy" variable in your equation. In post #6 I mentioned that wave energy is one of the three infinities, and fills all space. That is radical to some people, and so would you state if you understand the concept of wave energy density filling all space, which I posted in response to your question, "What is an oscillating background?" If things are not presented clearly in post #6, then I suggest we go back to post #6 which was a response to your post #5, and delve into it. If you have any questions about post #6, I'll address them, because I have given you a number of responses, all in response to your questions, and I'm not sure you understood any part of my responses. You have responded by adding new and similar questions without saying that you understand what I am trying to convey. Are you OK with going back there and covering the material again. This is a repeated question stated in various ways, which I have answered twice I think, which makes me think we need to go as far back as post #6, and cover everything from there again. I'll be glad to respond to you about how one region of space can have two different energy densities though. It is because everything is relative to everything else in space; everything is in motion, and there is a unique energy density relationship between any two paired objects, because no two sets of two objects will have the same relative motion between them. Will you acknowledge that concept, and tell me what more you want to ask about "everything is in motion relative to everything else"?

Have I explained myself in regard to the continuity problem your brought up in post #13? If not, l want to go back and work on it some more before continuing with presenting more ISU basics.

That statement assumes there are no relative changes in positions of the clocks in question. The rate that our local clock measures time, relative to two different clocks that are in motion relative to our clock, would show different variances in the rate the several clocks measure time. Our clock in hand would tell us what time it is, but if you look at ours, and the two other moving clocks at the same time, we would have a choice of three different times because each clock would show a different rate of time passing, depending on the difference in the wave energy density at the respective locations. The wave energy density would be different for each location because of the relative motion. Given such a circumstance, our clock could be running faster than one of the other clocks, and slower than the other. This question has some similarity to a question in your last post, and the answer is about the same: Wave energy density fills all space and is coming and going in all directions at all points in space because of the continual emission and absorption of wave energy by wave-particles and objects which are all in relative motion to each other. Therefore, at any given point in space, say a clock location, there is a directional profile of wave energy density from distant sources. If you move the clock in any direction from that point in space, you are changing the local wave energy density profile based on your change in relative location to those sources. It is also in line with that logic that if you change the motion of any of the three clocks that are all in relative motion with each other, you could have a case where the energy density values will all change in different ways depending on what changes are made in their relative motion. That could cause our clock to slow down relative to one of the clocks, and speed up relative to the other. The premise that a person might conclude that if a clock is slowing down, it is because it has encountered some different wave energy density is not valid because you will not notice any change in the rate that the clock measures time passing if the local wave energy density changes. For example, if you are looking at your watch as you accelerate to a relativistic velocity, you will not see your watch slow down, because the functioning of the wave-particles in the clock slows down at the same rate that the functioning of the wave-particles in your body slows down. Both are governed by the same local wave energy density, and will not appear to change, given any change in acceleration, as long as you and the watch accelerate together. When you say a clock "sees" an increases in density, and another clock "sees" a lower density, when they are both moving through the same point in space, it is a logical possibility, given the premises of the ISU model. Your example points out that the clocks are moving in different directions relative to each other, even though they are passing through the same point or vicinity of space. I have recently described that circumstance in terms of the energy density profile at any given point in space, and have mentioned that relative motion governs the different rates that clocks measure the passing of time. So the answer to this specific question is similar. The motion in different directions changes the wave energy density profile for the clocks moving in different directions, even if they are at the same location when the profile is measured.

If "it" in that sentence means the local wave energy density, it can both increase or decrease, governed by motion relative to surrounding massive objects. I see no problem with it, and though you pointed out a problem with continuity, I need you to give some more explanation of what the continuity problem is. I will be happy to explain my statements in light of any further explanation if the problem. Wave energy density fills all space and is coming and going in all directions at all points in space because of the continual emission and absorption of wave energy by particles and objects which are all in relative motion to each other. Therefore, at any given point in space, there is a directional profile of wave energy from distant sources. If you move in any direction from that point in space, you are changing the local wave energy density profile based on your change in relative location to those sources. That motion affects clocks because the rate that clocks measure time is governed by the wave energy density of their location.

You just block quoted my entire post. You seem to see an issue in there in regard to me talking about increasing energy density on one hand and not increasing on the other hand. There is no inconsistency that I know of with those statements, so if you want to give me the conflicting statements in context, I'm certain I can sort out the misstatements.

The observations are the same, regardless of the model. The explanations for the observed effects might have to be different in the ISU vs. GR because GR has a beginning that is sometimes characterized as a zero volume, hot, infinitely dense point, and there is no such beginning at all in the ISU model. There are multiple big bangs in the ISU, but they don't feature a zero volume, hot, dense ball of energy that may expand forever. Instead, they feature the convergence of two or more expanding Big Bang arenas, where big crunches form from the gravitational accumulation of the galactic material of the parent arenas. Big crunches collapse/bang into new expanding arenas, and you get a scenario similar to the mechanics of the oscillating background; a self-perpetuating Big Bang arena action process that recycles of energy from expanding and cooling arenas back to hot dense big crunches, which collapse/bang into expansion. The process is speculated to defeat entropy on a grand scale. Also, in GR, the universe is thought to be expanding at an accelerating rate, but the ISU is a steady state model in accord with the Perfect Cosmological Principle mentioned earlier. Big Bang arenas expand until their expansion is interrupted by intersecting with adjacent expanding Big Bang arenas, and so expansion is not eternal in the ISU. I did not say GR was wrong however. I don't think you have to falsify GR in order to speculate about a cosmology that starts with radically different premises, but I do think that any such model must still address the same set of observables. Essentially I agree with that but I am still piecing together the important aspects of the ISU, and as I do, I have to make sure that everything is internally consistent in my own mind. I don't think it would be productive to quantify it all as I go, and that would not be in line with my skills. It could easily vary if every object in space emits and absorbs gravity waves and is in relative motion with every other object. Given that circumstance, the local wave energy density would actually vary from point to point, no mater where you chose to measure it. The density is not continually increasing, it is continually changing as relative motion takes place. For example, in my model, if the moon is directly overhead, the wave energy density where you stand is higher than if you are standing a quarter of a rotation away from that spot. So where you are on the surface of a sphere has differing energy density depending on the location and motion of all massive objects surrounding that sphere. You are on to something there, and you obviously are aware of the data that it would have taken me awhile to come up with. To correct you though, what I said was, "I haven't given much thought before about clock speed traveling east vs. west, but the rotation of the earth would have an effect of the wave energy density environment of the clocks traveling east vs. west, so the clock that is traveling with the rotation would measure time at a slightly faster rate than the clock that was traveling against the rotation. To me, since I hadn't given it much thought, I was visualizing "with the rotation" to be in the direction that the sun travels east to west across the surface of the earth, which, after your correction, I see the error. So according to that condition, the west bound clock would run faster than the east bound clock. That means that the energy density of the environment of the east bound clock would be higher and it would run slower because it is traveling into the energy density "headwind" of rotation, and so your data is in line with my model that the eastbound clock would run slower.

I'm pleased to address questions about the basic concepts of the model. I'm not saying general relativity is wrong, but this is not a spacetime model because the basic premises which I discussed earlier, the three Infinities, seem to preclude general relativity because there is no beginning associated with the ISU model. GR is an excellent theory, and it is supported with mathematics that are quite precise, but my concerns with it center on the fact that it requires a beginning. If the universe had a beginning, that means to me that either the universe started from "nothingness", which is a concept that I have never been able to find any really good support for, or there is the "God did it" scenario, which invokes the Supernatural, and that is not part of science. I don't claim to have any extraordinary evidence; generally accepted observations and data are the same for my model as they are for Big Bang Theory, or any model. However, I have made some speculations that are not supported by any extra evidence but that I think are consistent with what we can physically observe. I can't adequately quantify the effect of my speculation that the local wave energy density governs the rate that clocks measure the passing of time, but I will give you my speculative answer. According to the model, the earth is composed of wave-particles as described in the thread I conducted called Wave-Particle Speculations. Given those speculations, and given that the earth is in motion relative to some rest position, that relative motion increases the local wave energy density of the moving earth. That would mean that if you have a clock on earth in the rest position, it will run faster than a clock on the earth that is in relative motion. I haven't given much thought before about clock speed traveling east vs. west, but the rotation of the earthy would have an effect on the wave energy density environment of the clocks traveling east vs. west, so the clock that is traveling with the rotation would measure time at a slightly faster rate than the clock that was traveling against the rotation. Do you want me to think through the details and make some estimate based on some research I would have to do into known experimental data of clock measurements taken in opposite directions at some given distance from earth? I don't think I would do very well at that. In the east vs west scenario, I think there would be a difference in the local wave energy density in the environment surrounding the two traveling clocks, as mentioned above. I speculate that the waves expand as their energy density equalizes with the surrounding wave energy density as mentioned in the previous post, where I speculated about a force that I associated with wave energy density equalization. If two independent expanding waves are left to expand until they eventually intersect, then their convergence would be a natural result of independent expansion. That is what my idea is about the oscillating background. If you visualize an imaginary condition of the oscillating background where there are no meaningful light or gravity waves traversing that background, i.e., an otherwise waveless condition, then it might be depicted by this image: The individual oscillations would expand until their expansion is interrupted by intersecting with an adjacent expanding oscillation.

Going through the speculations about the oscillating background brings the discussion to the effect that wave energy density, being composed of the light and gravity waves traversing space, has on the rate that clocks measure the passing of time in the ISU model. There is a duration of time involved with each oscillation, starting at the instant of convergence and continuing as the new high energy density spot forms, and then emerges into spherical expansion. There are always conditions that cause the rate that clocks measure the passing of time to vary because the rate that clocks measure time is governed by the local wave energy density; the rate that clocks measure the passing of time changes when you measure it at different energy density levels, even when we are talking about the foundational level where there is an otherwise waveless oscillating background. Given this effect of variable clock time passing, the pattern of the measured rate that time passes throughout each foundational level oscillation should show this variability because each oscillation features variable levels of energy density as the oscillation plays out. The peak of energy density is at the instant of convergence. As the convergence plays out, the point of intersection enlarges to become an overlap of the parent waves in the immediately surrounding space. As that takes place, the local energy density within the forming high energy density spot changes. That changing wave energy density environment would cause a clock, if it could be inserted there, to change the rate that it measures time; as the density declines, the rate that time passes within the forming high energy density spot would increase. Conversely, there is a time delay that occurs in the action process as the parent waves first converge because the clock would measure time passing slower at that peak energy density condition. Speculatively, the time delay is an important part of the mechanics of the oscillating background because expansion and convergence are "on the clock", and the duration of each phase is out of sync with adjacent oscillations, which is a natural effect that would seemingly play a role in the self-perpetuation of the oscillating background. To be continued ...

Let's agree for this response that I am talking about the oscillations taking place in the background, and they are characterized by parent waves converging to produce new spherically expanding waves, which become the new oscillations in the foundational background. That puts this explanation on its simplest basis, and at that level, an expanding wave carries energy from the parent waves, via the high energy density spot, to the new spherically expanding out flowing wave that emerges from the high energy density spot. In the model there is a force involved that speculatively explains why/how the new wave expands into the surrounding space. It is called the force of energy density equalization. That means that a new oscillation wave will expand if its density is higher than the wave energy density of the surrounding space. That is a reasonable circumstance because each new wave starts out a the peak of density that occurs at the point where the parent waves converge. That means that all of the surrounding space is at a lower level of energy density than the point of convergence, and the high energy density spot that forms around the point of convergence will expand into the lower energy density space. Expansion will continue until it is interrupted by encountering another wave. That encounter will lead to a new high energy density spot which will produce a new oscillation in the form of a new spherically expanding wave in the background. There is a continual oscillation between expansion and convergence that characterizes the background. I agree with you that the model depends on the existence of light waves and gravitational waves. I consider several generally accepted experiments that produce both types of wave energy. I refer to the LIGO detection of gravitational waves from massive high energy events that carry gravitational wave energy across space, and to the interference patterns we detect that form during the single particle - two slit experiments. Both light and gravitational wave energy have their source in wave-particles; light is the out flowing wave energy from the photon particle, and gravitational waves are the out flowing wave energy from all particles and objects. Therefore, all space is continually being supplied new wave energy from particles and objects, and the quantum action process involves the absorption of those out flowing waves from distant particles and objects into surrounding particles and objects; the out flowing wave energy from a particle or object becomes the inflowing wave energy that sustains the presence of surrounding particles and objects.

So what is an oscillating background and what is oscillating as time passes? Keeping in mind that the ISU has always existed and complies with the Perfect Cosmological Principle that states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic in space and time, and it looks the same everywhere (on the large scale), always has and always will, then it is reasonable to say that wave energy has always filled all space. It is light wave energy and gravitational wave energy in space that is oscillating as time passes. That means that there is a mechanism in nature that perpetuates the existence of the oscillations of wave energy, and in the ISU, that mechanism is called an Action Process; that action process perpetuates the oscillating background. A comment about the energy independence of the oscillating background: There is a wide range of energy carried by light and gravitational waves, and a potentially infinite history of wave action across all space. However, the speculation is that the oscillating background would be self-perpetuating at nature's lowest energy level, and would oscillate continually on its own in an otherwise waveless universe, without the arrival or introduction of more meaningful light and gravitational wave energy. Of course in reality, more meaningful wave energy is continually traversing space, and the oscillating background provides the mechanism for the advance of that meaningful light and gravitational wave energy that naturally imposes itself on the background. At the level of action where the tiny oscillations exist, I call the process Quantum Action. I speculate that each oscillation consists of the convergence of two or more of the tiny energy waves that are expanding as a result of the previous quantum action that produced them. In that context, the mechanics of each new oscillation starts when the parent waves converge. The energy carried by the individual parent waves is merged at the point of intersection, and that establishes a point in space where the action process to create a new oscillation out of the energy of the parent waves will begin to play out. In my discussions of the model, I refer to those intersections as the origin of "high energy density spots". High energy density spots are part of the mechanism that leads to new oscillating waves that emerge from the high energy density spots. As for energy not being a medium, my comment is that in the ISU, all that exists is composed of wave energy. I don't call it a medium as such, except to refer to the oscillating background being equivalent to the foundational medium of space.. To be continued ...

Continuing ... I would like to comment on the concept of infinity by mentioning that people have told me that they don't consider my model because they don't accept, or at least they cannot "get their arms around" the concept of infinity as it applies to space or to time in a model where the universe is boundless, had no beginning, and will have no end. To me, being comfortable with infinity goes to the logic that when I look out into space, I am seeing back in time. Logically, the past goes back forever unless there is some boundary around space that contains its full extent, and limits the amount of time that could have already passed. When I contemplate such containment of space, I find the concept to be as hard to get my arms around as some must find the infinities of space, time, and energy to be hard to comprehend. So even if the ISU wasn't build of speculations upon speculations, it still might not be right for you. Feel free to express your opinions as I go along.

Yes, it possesses similarities to the concept of the quantum foam. Wheeler came at it from the perspective that spacetime is not perfectly smooth, and could be composed of tiny patches of spacetime that fluctuate between states; there might be different mechanisms involved as described in your link. My opinion is the quantum foam, or some equivalent to it, is necessary to provide a foundational background for the advance of light and gravitational wave energy through space. The ISU is not a spacetime model, but it does have a counterpart to spacetime foam. I call it the oscillating background, and described it in a limited way in my Wave-Particle Speculations thread. See posts #46 and #49 in that thread. Your question is timely in regard to this thread as well, and leads me into my next post. To be continued ... And to continue on with the ISU model:The Three Infinities Speculation: In the Infinite Spongy Universe model, space is infinite and has always existed. Thus the two concepts, infinite space and infinite time, are invoked as axioms of the ISU. The third infinity, infinite energy, is also axiomatic, meaning that the three Infinities are necessary prerequisites to all of the details of the model, and are consistent will all observations, as well as with all of the speculations and hypotheses of the ISU. Given the Three Infinities, there is no Empty Space in the ISU; all space is filled with wave energy at varying densities, and each wave front advances through an oscillating energy background at the local speed of light. To be continued ...

Introduction to the Infinite Spongy Universe Speculation: I am starting this thread to address speculations and hypotheses about a wave energy density model of the cosmology of the universe, aka The Infinite Spongy Universe Model, (ISU). This thread will incorporate what I have presented in http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/102607-wave-particle-speculation/ except that that thread started out focused on the wave-particle, and the single particle - two slit experiments, and this thread starts out with a focus on the cosmology of the universe with which that wave-particle discussion is internally consistent. It is being presented in the Speculations sub-forum because, as a speculative model, it doesn't have any standing in the hard science forums which are for generally accepted science, supported by mathematics, and intended for science education and mainstream discussion. The ISU model is a speculative view of cosmology, and readers are cautioned that the content is not generally accepted science, and is evolving, along with speculations and hypotheses about the nature and history of the universe, wave-particles, the nature of energy, quantum gravity, and related processes and forces at both the micro and macro levels, and including preconditions to our Big Bang arena. Our arena is hypothesized to be part of a greater universe where the landscape features multiple Big Bang arenas across space and time. In the above referenced thread, I described the wave-particle speculation to offer an explanation for the interference patterns that form in the single particle, two slit experiments, and that discussion then lead to an expanded discussion of a wave energy density model of cosmology, where everything in the universe is composed of wave energy. In that thread it was discussed that there are several and various explanations for those delayed interference patterns that form from a stream of individual particles in the two slit experiments, but the wave-particle speculations in my explanation are distinguishable from the other explanations, and are uniquely consistent with the ISU model of cosmology. That is because the ISU features local reality, and the other explanations generally require non-locality. As discussed, that distinction is the reason my wave-particle speculations, though similar to the de Broglie-Bohm theory of quantum mechanics, cannot be construed to be consistent with Pilot Wave Theory. The ISU is a version of cosmology that is consistent with what has come to be called the Perfect Cosmological Principle by the scientific community: Quote from Wiki: "The perfect cosmological principle is an extension of the cosmological principle, and states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic in space and time. In this view the universe looks the same everywhere (on the large scale), the same as it always has and always will." Cosmological Principle - Wikipedia In this thread I will explore what distinguishes the Perfect Cosmological Principle from the Cosmological Principle, by employing a methodology of reasonable and responsible, step by step speculations, where everything that is included is intended to be internally consistent, and not inconsistent with generally accepted scientific observations and data. I will start from the beginning, even though in this model, there was no beginning. Given the premise that there was "no beginning", the first step is to introduce what I call the three Infinities, space, time, and energy, which serve as the primary axioms of the ISU model. To be continued ...

This thread has become a soliloquy by me about a very speculative cosmological model that features the wave-particle, and a universe composed of nothing but wave energy. That model is called the Wave Energy Density model, which I also call the Infinite Spongy Universe model. I could go on indefinitely about the ISU, contrasting that model with the Big Bang model, with other models that are not quite the consensus but have professional support, and with various interpretations of quantum mechanics. But is this Speculations sub-forum supposed to be a place for that? I'm not sure. Or is it more a place to move speculations that are opened and promoted in the hard science forums? If your thread is moved here, that act carries with it a sort of warning that the Trash Can could become the final resting place of your personal speculations. It is generally true that threads moved here often evolve into claims that are clear violations of known, testable, repeatable science. In some ways of thinking, members are given enough rope to hang themselves, on the way out into the Trash Can; that is how science forms should be run, in my opinion. It doesn't look like this thread is headed for that fate yet, and that might be a sign that there is some consideration of the ideas herein. Perhaps the membership, and especially the moderation team, has not yet formed the consensus that the content violates the standard of reasonable and responsible speculations. But that could easily change if I add related ideas that clearly cross the line, and new material could start pointing to the next move; to the trash can. If I stop here, maybe the content so far will just go unchallenged, and this forum will be the final resting place of speculations about the Wave Energy Density model of the universe. However, if I do decide to stop here, that might be an admission that there are serious flaws in the material that no one is interested in enough to challenge, but that if fully examined would be found to violate the self-designated "reasonable and responsible speculations" standard. Guidance from the moderation team isn't expected, but sometimes there are comments from moderators that give ample warning to an impending move to the trash can. I think that the policy, that I interpret as "fair warning", applies to this thread too. On faith that that is true, I'm going to go on into some more speculations upon speculations, hoping that I get fair warning in advance of a decision to trash can these ideas in their entirety. I would welcome a chance to either elaborate on the challenged content, and present a better case, or retract the offending post because, when after consideration of content of the challenge, I agree with the opposing argument.

My speculations about time delay and the action processes brings me to an appropriate point in this thread to bring in some thoughts about the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. If you view the universe from a perspective of a multiple Big Bang arena landscape, time is no longer recorded from a beginning some 14 billion years ago, but instead there potentially would have been an infinite past. That leads to speculative predictions about the history and nature the CMBR that don't exactly agree with Big Bang theory timeline. In current theory, there is one feature of the wave energy background that is sometimes referred to as the CMB "rest frame". The theory of the CMB rest frame is that it is casually connected to the Big Bang, and the mechanics of that BB origin involve a Surface of Last Scattering. The "surface of last scattering" was a very early event in the 14 billion year Big Bang timeline. It marked the point in the decline in the temperature of the hot dense ball of wave energy when the "opacity" was lifted. It was at that point that atoms formed and emitted light in the form of photon energy. That light was released almost simultaneously from all points within the expanding Big Bang arena. At its origin, the CMBR was thought to have been a homogeneous and isotropic flow of high energy photons, coming and going in all directions at all points of space. The generally accepted explanation goes on to discuss the effect that expansion has on the light waves that are present and traversing space. The effect of expansion on the original light waves emitted from the surface of last scattering is that the wave length gets lengthened and the light gets redshifted. After some 14 billion years of expansion, that high energy radiation would have been stretched and tamed down to the radio and micro wave frequencies that we observe today. However, in the Wave Energy Density model of the universe (the Infinite Spongy Universe), speculation is that something is happening on a much grander scale than that of a singular Big Bang. It is in the potentially infinite pre-existing space, and the potentially infinite history of Big Bang arenas, where we would expect multiple big bangs to have left their individual CMB contributions on the background wave energy that we observe today. That would make the CMB much older than our individual Big Bang, meaning that the causal connection to our Big Bang event changes. Our arena would have been the result of the intersection and overlap of two or more parent arenas with their own individual cosmic microwave energy backgrounds, which might nicely explain the significant hemispherical anisotropy that we observe in the WMAP and Planck surveys. Further, those parent arenas would be just a tiny fraction of the history. The sky surveys show a complicated angular temperature pattern that doesn't look at all like the homogeneous and isotropic background predicted by Big Bang theory. They would seem to be more supportive of the long history of a multiple Big Bang arena landscape, as predicted in the wave energy density model.

Adding to my speculative comments about the variable rate that wave-particles function, I should make a distinction because many interactions are speeded up by applying heat energy, and so how do I reconcile that? The question in some cases comes down to what affect heat transfer has on a local environment, vs. what effect acceleration has on the particles and on the local environment of the moving objects. I am taking relative motion. If you heat up a gas it expands, and all of the wave-particles within the container increase their relative motion and push against the container; they are accelerated relative to the container, but the expansion of the container itself is unremarkable, so the space within it remains essentially unchanged. On the other hand, if you accelerate the container, the local environment changes in a different way. When the container of gas is accelerated, the wave-particles and the container become heavier relative to the rest environment, and the internal flow of wave energy that sustains their presence within the moving environment experiences a slightly longer duration of time delay at each intersection and wave convergence. So I'm referring to time delay due to acceleration of the local environment relative to the rest environment, as opposed to elevated energy levels of particles within an otherwise "at rest" environment. The time delay occurs as the wave energy in the overlap space of each wave convergence (see earlier graphics) equalizes and overcomes the wave energy density surrounding it. The relative difference between the internal wave energy density and the surrounding wave energy density governs the duration of the resulting time delay. As a result, in a very low energy wave convergence, equalization of the local internal wave energy density is more rapid than in a high energy density wave convergence, causing particles to function more slowly at higher rates of acceleration, and subsequently, causing the traveling twin to age slower.

Wave-particle speculation has been the topic all the way through this thread. The Wave Energy Density model of the universe is unique among cosmologies because of the unique nature of particles it invokes, and the way they can be used to explain some of the generally accepted observations of physics. For example, observations of wave interference in the various two slit experiments, especially the single particle delayed choice set-ups, where particles display both their wave nature and their particle nature at the same time. They also can be used to suggest a local solution to what other models have to resort to calling non-local or "spooky" action at a distance. If you consider the speculations about the persistence of the slope of the particle's magnetic field relative to a perpendicular to the axis of motion, you get a possible explanation for the observed always up/down behavior measured by the Stern-Gerlach apparatus. Those observations and the associated explanations, given the speculated nature of the wave-particle, brings up the possibility of local hidden variable theories that might give some possible support for an objective local reality, as opposed to the spookiness of non-locality. With that perspective, the interpretations of the Bob and Alice scenarios that use spin as a determinant in the Bell experiments might require a change in the predicted limits produced by the Bell equations. Those points, which have been brought up in the thread, are open for discussion, but beyond that, the wave-particle, and how it fits nicely into the Wave Energy Density model, leads me to contemplate it seriously, since it accommodates all of those points. I call that model the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU), and it could be said to be a flat spacetime model. That contemplation leads to speculation about how local wave energy density could be construed to have the same effect that is quantified as the curvature of spacetime in General Relativity. In GR, matter tells spacetime how to curve, and the curvature of spacetime tells matter how to move. Given that relationship in GR, and since individual wave fronts are real, the curvature of spacetime equates to a linear distance in the wave energy model, with the caveat that it can take a variable amount of time on a benchmark at-rest clock to traverse the same linear distance, depending on the local wave energy density. A case in point, in the wave energy model, the wave energy density would be greater near a massive object because of the elevated outflowing gravitational wave energy, slowing the relative velocity of an object traveling the space surrounding that massive object, causing its path to turn in toward the massive object. That is what we physically observe, in the ISU, I speculate it would happen, just as the GR spacetime geodesics would predict. Light from distant stars would bend as it is observed to do, but the explanation for its bending would be the changing wave energy density around the massive object instead of the bending of spacetime caused by the presence of the massive object. Also, a notable ramification of the wave energy density model is that particles would function at a variable rate, just as wave-particles are predicted to do in the wave energy model. They are predicted to function slower as the local energy density increases, and faster as the local energy density decreases, i.e., the rate that clocks measure time is attributed to the differing wave energy density of the local space hosting the clocks. A case in point, if light and gravity traverse different local space environments, they would likely be measured at different velocities relative to the rest position. Then clocks would run slower when accelerated, and twins would age at different rates relative to a scenario that considers one twin to be at rest and the other in relative motion to the twin at rest, and that is what observations show.

The concept of "persistence" has come up before in my speculations, but I didn't name it that until I related it to spin up and spin down persistence in this thread. Now that I can visualize how it affects the slope of the magnetic field generated by wave-particles, I think it is appropriate to mention my speculations about its greater role in the cosmology I have come to call the Wave Energy Density model of the universe. There is a persistence connection between quantum action and arena action, the two major processes of the model. The connection stems from the nature of wave energy itself, of which everything is composed. Wave energy is the ultimate example of "persistence", and in the model it is infinite and perpetual. The effect of persistence at the quantum level is that the temporary spots within the particle's standing wave pattern tend to re-form in the same general configuration because their inflowing wave energy component comes from the previous adjacent spots, and their out flowing wave energy component feeds subsequent spots that form adjacent to existing spots. This micro level process of quantum action has its similar counterpart at the macro level in that the arena landscape is perpetuated by the process of arena action. The unique persistence of the configuration of quantum spots within the particle space has existed since the particle achieved stability early in the process of arena action (after the decay of the Big Bang energy ball). Particles within the Big Bang arena are, for the most part, the product of the big crunch decay process. Thus the individual standing wave patterns, composed of a huge number of convergences, maintains its individual configuration of energy quanta distribution within the particle space. Thus persistence is a speculative explanation for the perpetuation of the slope of the particle's magnetic field that forms perpendicular to the axis of motion.

What comes to light in searching out a segment of the community that would welcome evidence supporting an objective local reality is that there are many people still uncomfortable with aspects of QM that relate to "spooky action at a distance". One side of the argument is that the universe doesn't consider how any group of people feels about reality, so If reality is a "spooky" non-locality, then humans have to accept it. Another side of the argument is that anything that seems spooky has natural local causes that we don't yet understand. That is the side of the argument where any physical reality of the wave-particle speculations would come into play. Therefore, the wave-particle speculations that I am considering do have some support because they might explain away the "spookiness" by providing a physical alternative which can be embraced by the "objective reality" people. Not that they would be right, but that they would still have enough of a loophole to keep them in the game. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/new-theory-explains-how-objective-reality-emerges-from-the-strange-underlying-quantum-world/

If my speculations about the physical nature of the wave-particle aren't totally bogus, then I have something I can call on when I imagine an objective reality. (If there is no objective reality, and the only thing that is real is what goes on inside my head, then I have objective reality covered either way, lol) So the direction these speculations are taking me is to wonder, as a rhetorical question, if there is any meaningful segment of the community that might welcome an objective reality? I'll do some research.

In post #57 I wondered if the wave-particle speculations, if applied to the probabilities associated with classical mechanics, would change the upper limits that are violated in the Bell experiments, and bring new life to objective reality. Then in post #63 I concluded that the answer might not be that the nature of the wave-particle would change the upper limits of the expected probabilities, but instead, might mean that we don't completely understand the nature of wave-particle "spin". If we don't understand exactly the nature of spin, then our interpretation of what the "up/down" measurements by the Stern-Gerlach device are telling us about the particle might not be completely understood either. I began contemplating the wave energy mechanics of the wave-particle in regard to what was actually being measured by the Stern-Gerlach apparatus. Generally, particles in motion are incorporating new convergences in the direction of motion, and "dropping off" convergences in the trailing direction. Based on that, given that the quantum wave convergences have a directional axis perpendicular to the plane separating the two converging waves, what I came up with was the idea that the wave-particle logically could have a magnetic field perpendicular to the direction of motion, In accord with the speculation that there is a magnetic field perpendicular to the direction of motion, then it follows that that there might be a slope to that field force based on the internal distribution of the high energy density spots within the core particle space, which might differ for each individual particle. That is followed by the speculative idea that there is a persistency to that distribution within the core particle space that maintains the slope of the field for individual particles, relative to the axis of motion. If so, that could be an explanation for how all of the "up or down" spins might persist throughout subsequent measurements on the same axis.

I'm getting desperate, watching videos in German, since I don't know German, lol. But if you watch the whole whole video linked below, without sound, you will see that there is a lot you can take away from this. To me, it shows that the measurements, up or down, as particles passing through the Stern-Gerlach device, are decided by a fine line of distinction between the orientation of the particles magnetic field strength, vs the very fine balance of the magnetic field of the devices. If you think of the wave-particle field always being oriented perpendicular to the direction of motion of the particle, but also having a slope relative to the perpendicular, caused by the individual particle imbalance in the distribution of the internal high energy density spots, then you could speculate the explanation for how particles that measure "up" in the first device, would also measure up in a second device with the exact same orientation to the direction of motion of the particle. You would have to speculate that there is some repeatability to the slope because the momentary high energy density convergences have a pattern. The pattern persists, even though each spot is only momentary, because the wave/wave intersections that form the spots have only a certain number of adjacent quanta with which to intersect, and once a complex standing wave pattern is established, the speculation is that it has the characteristic of "persistence". Up particles would consistently measure "up", and down particles would consistently measure down. But there is no "memory" involved, it is the physical orientation of the persistent high energy density spots within the core particle space. Change the axis of measurement, and it is a whole new ball game, with a randomness of the slope based on the distribution of the high energy density convergences on that new axis.

Still speculating about the wave-particle of course: Considering the diagram in post #50 to be an example of the simplest quantum wave convergence, like those that are filling the core portion of the wave-particle''s space, you can see that the two spherical caps are separated by a plane that runs perpendicular to the axis of convergence. I'm thinking that there could be a magnetic field being produced, generally along that axis, during the formation of the high energy density spots. Given that the preponderance of the new quantum wave convergences would form in the forward region of the core portion, the particle's field would maintain its perpendicular orientation to the forward motion as it moves through the Stern-Gerlach device? If so, I'm thinking every particle would measure either up or down, 50/50, for any given orientation of the apparatus. Then, if you block all the down measured particles along that axis, and retest the up particles, there might be some explanation for why they all remain up; I'll have to continue to contemplate that. Every time you change the orientation of measurement to measure at a different axis though, you go back to getting 50/50 up down.

Work in progress: This is an updated image of the core portion of the wave-particle that I am using as I contemplate any speculative charge or magnetic field associated with the core.

Applying the wave-particle speculation to the Bell Theorem and Bell experiments might start with a closer look at the nature of the wave particle, and at the device that measures spin in some of the Bell experiments, the Stern-Gerlach apparatus. In that interest, and as a very slow simple start to looking at the question, I am thinking about the measurement of spin and of what portion of the wave-particle was being measured by the specialized magnetic field of the device. Do both the wave portion and the core portion affect the measurement? My thinking is that the core portion of the particle is likely to carry with it a magnetic field, because there is an inflow of energy associated with each high energy density wave convergence that forms, and an out flow from the location of the spot associated with the disbursal of energy from the overlap space, as the high energy density spot plays out. The speculation is that there are many such spots within the core space. With those flows of wave energy, the wave outflow pattern from the core might be shaped by that magnetic field, changing it from the spherical nature I had been using (remember the Spherical Cow analogy?), into a more focused pattern with lines of force emanating from the core portions as the formation and disbursal of the spots play out in the oscillating wave energy background. In effect, the high energy density convergences may function like tiny electromagnets. If so, the distribution of those spots throughout the particle space that serves as the location of the core portion, might have a net charge related to it. Here is the image I posted earlier to show the way a wave-particle moves in the direction of the net highest wave energy source, and I am thinking about how to depict the changes to it that might be associated with it having a magnetic nature; a work in progress.