Jump to content

Introduction to the Infinite Spongy Universe


bogie
 Share

Recommended Posts

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 ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, to be sure.

 

But I wonder, after doing a cursory reading of your abstract on your ISU hypothesis, if it does not indeed posses a few similarities to Wheeler's Quantum Foam model? It strikes me that there are, especially regarding the ridges- in- the -STC ideas.

 

So....yeah...If you'd glance at this article and tell us if I'm even in the ballpark here, by saying that, I'd be very interested in hearing your opinion.

 

Thanks

 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

Edited by Velocity_Boy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, to be sure.

But I wonder, after doing a cursory reading of your abstract on your ISU hypothesis, if it does not indeed posses a few similarities to Wheeler's Quantum Foam model? It strikes me that there are, especially regarding the ridges- in- the -STC ideas.

So....yeah...If you'd glance at this article and tell us if I'm even in the ballpark here, by saying that, I'd be very interested in hearing your opinion.

Thankshttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

 

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 ...

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 ...

Edited by bogie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

What is oscillating? Energy is not a medium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is oscillating? Energy is not a medium.

 

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 ...

Edited by bogie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

So you have EM waves and gravitational waves, both of which have energy, but are not themselves synonymous with energy

 

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 ...

 

 

Then perhaps your first task is to show that energy is a thing rather than a property, and that these waves exist. What experiment could show this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you have EM waves and gravitational waves, both of which have energy, but are not themselves synonymous with energy

 

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.

Then perhaps your first task is to show that energy is a thing rather than a property, and that these waves exist. What experiment could show this?

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Neither of those descriptions are very accurate.

 

The latter is completely wrong. Objects and particles do not, in general, emit gravitational waves. It takes a very particular type of asymmetrical system to produce gravitational waves.

 

If you idea is based upon these assumptions then it is dead on arrival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To be continued ...

 

 

There is no point in continuing until questions about these basic concepts have been addressed.

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.

 

So, what is your experimental evidence that clock variation is dependent on this "local wave energy density" and not due to the known effects of relativity?

 

For example, how much should a clock slow down traveling east vs traveling west relative to the surface of the earth, according to your idea? The energy density is the same, I presume. Is the effect the same?

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.

 

 

Why do these waves converge?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no point in continuing until questions about these basic concepts have been addressed.

I'm pleased to address questions about the basic concepts of the model.

So, what is your experimental evidence that clock variation is dependent on this "local wave energy density" and not due to the known effects of relativity?

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.

For example, how much should a clock slow down traveling east vs traveling west relative to the surface of the earth, according to your idea?

 

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.

 

The energy density is the same, I presume. Is the effect the same?

 

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.

Why do these waves converge?

 

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:

aae153ea46bf6e5e831a383e3ec6ee88_zpstbx2

The individual oscillations would expand until their expansion is interrupted by intersecting with an adjacent expanding oscillation.

Edited by bogie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

If you have a mechanism that is not part of GR, then you are indeed saying GR is wrong. You can't have GR effects (spacetime curvature) in addition to your own.

 

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.

First off, this is exactly the sort of thing you need to be thinking about and trying to quantify.

 

As to the energy wave density varying, one issue is: how could it? The density cannot be continually increasing, because you should expect it to have the same value once you've mapped out a complete circle, i.e. you have a continuity equation problem. Why should any one point along that circle have a higher value than another? This would only make sense if you said that the density is always higher in the direction of the earth's orbit, i.e. it "piled up" on the leading edge of the earth. But that would mean a diurnal variation in clock performance which is not observed.

 

Your prediction that time would speed up for the eastward-bound clock is not supported by the experimental evidence. Eastbound clocks ran slower when this was tested. Westbound clocks ran faster. This is a failed prediction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have a mechanism that is not part of GR, then you are indeed saying GR is wrong. You can't have GR effects (spacetime curvature) in addition to your own.

 

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.

First off, this is exactly the sort of thing you need to be thinking about and trying to quantify.

 

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.

As to the energy wave density varying, one issue is: how could it?

 

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 cannot be continually increasing, because you should expect it to have the same value once you've mapped out a complete circle, i.e. you have a continuity equation problem. Why should any one point along that circle have a higher value than another? This would only make sense if you said that the density is always higher in the direction of the earth's orbit, i.e. it "piled up" on the leading edge of the earth. But that would mean a diurnal variation in clock performance which is not observed.

 

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.

Your prediction that time would speed up for the eastward-bound clock is not supported by the experimental evidence. Eastbound clocks ran slower when this was tested. Westbound clocks ran faster. This is a failed prediction.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

You said you are not saying GR is wrong, and yet you propose gravitational waves that behave completely differently than those described by GR.

 

You also describe photons behaving completely differently than current quantum field theory.

 

Do you have any evidence that "wave energy" flows from photons?

Do you have any evidence that gravitational waves flow from all objects?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

But you just said the energy density would not be increasing, whereas before you said it would increase in the direction of rotation. IOW, you have conflicting explanations and nothing consistent with having any effect on time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you just said the energy density would not be increasing, whereas before you said it would increase in the direction of rotation. IOW, you have conflicting explanations and nothing consistent with having any effect on time.

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. Edited by bogie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

It can't both increase and not increase.

 

"that relative motion increases the local wave energy density of the moving earth"

"the rotation of the earthy would have an effect on the wave energy density environment of the clocks traveling east vs. west"

in response to my question about east- vs westward-bound clocks.

 

This, however, runs into a problem with continuity, as I have pointed out.

 

Then you said "The density is not continually increasing, it is continually changing as relative motion takes place."

 

Changing in what way?

 

Any why does this change affect clocks depending on the direction they move?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can't both increase and not increase.

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.

 

"that relative motion increases the local wave energy density of the moving earth"

"the rotation of the earthy would have an effect on the wave energy density environment of the clocks traveling east vs. west"

in response to my question about east- vs westward-bound clocks.

 

This, however, runs into a problem with continuity, as I have pointed out.

 

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.

Then you said "The density is not continually increasing, it is continually changing as relative motion takes place."

 

Changing in what way?

 

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.

Any why does this change affect clocks depending on the direction they move?

That motion affects clocks because the rate that clocks measure time is governed by the wave energy density of their location. Edited by bogie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

A value cannot simultaneously increase and remain constant. A mathematical impossibility. The slope will be single-valued.

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.

And how does the value of this energy density both increase and remain constant as you move from point A to point B?

That motion affects clocks because the rate that clocks measure time is governed by the wave energy density of their location.

From this, one might conclude that if a clock is slowing down, it's because it has encountered some different wave density. How does one clock see an increased density, and another clock moving through the same point, but in the opposite direction see a lower density?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A value cannot simultaneously increase and remain constant. A mathematical impossibility. The slope will be single-valued.

 

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.

And how does the value of this energy density both increase and remain constant as you move from point A to point B?

 

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.

From this, one might conclude that if a clock is slowing down, it's because it has encountered some different wave density.

 

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.

How does one clock see an increased density, and another clock moving through the same point, but in the opposite direction see a lower density?

 

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

But what if you have a stationary clock and another clock passes by it? Or two clocks passing each other in opposite directions? Why does the energy density depend on their motion, and not the location itself?

 

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.

How is that possible? Energy density is energy/volume. How can one region of space have two different energy densities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what if you have a stationary clock ...

 

What do you mean a "stationary clock"?. Do you mean "at rest"? If so, what is it at rest relative to?

... and another clock passes by it?

 

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?

Or two clocks passing each other in opposite directions?

 

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?

Why does the energy density depend on their motion, and not the location itself? How is that possible?

 

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.

Energy density is energy/volume.

 

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.

How can one region of space have two different energy densities?

 

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"?

Edited by bogie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean a "stationary clock"?. Do you mean "at rest"? If so, what is it at rest relative to?

At rest in whatever coordinate system I've chosen. In this case, the earth. That's the example we were using.

 

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?

If one clock passes by another, they cannot be at rest with respect to each other.

 

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?

 

Yes. east- and westward-bound clocks, relative to one on the ground, as we were discussing.

 

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.

That can't work. The whole point of having a coordinate system and frame of reference is that all of the points in it are at rest with respect to each other. A location one meter away from me is always going to be one meter away. It's not going to move.

 

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.

 

In standard physics, anything in inertial motion can be considered at rest in its own frame. Typically placed at the origin, but that doesn't matter.

 

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.

No, that's not going to fly. Physics has a definition of energy, and equations that describe it. If you are using a different concept, it's incumbent upon you to come up with a new term for it, and not mis-appropriate a word with an extant meaning.

 

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?"

Since you just said that you are using some new definition of energy, which you have not shared, I cannot say I understand.

 

Once you come up with a new word, then your statement becomes something like "wave flooble density", and no, I don't know what that is, since "flooble" is undefined.

 

 

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 different energy density relationship between any two objects that are in relative motion to each other. Will you acknowledge that concept, and tell me what more you want to ask about "everything is in motion relative to everything else"?

The course of action here is for you to present an actual mathematical model. Then you can show how "flooble" density transforms from one coordinate system to another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.