[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Bogie, we're still closer than you may think, in our ideas. Haven't had time to check out your blog, but will comment a bit anyway...

Originally Posted by Bogie

Hi Lloyd, thanks for commenting about ideas and differences. Your FPS and my EEP seem to form the background within which matter exists, am I right.[IMO, all background is matter, in its different and varying forms.] The difference if I am thinking straight is that my EEP background allows me to refer to the energy density of space. Does that phrase represent anything in your view?[Yes, I view it all as energy density, but with the qualifier that all energy is really fundamental matter in different changed state forms.]
For comparisons between your idea and mine (I call mine the Infinite Spongy Universe cosmology btw), what does the big crunch form from?[Well, I guess, I'd call mine the Infinite Thermal Ping-Pong Universe Cosmology. The big crunch forms from the always existing fundamental substance.] I mean what is it made up of on the input side?[If taken from the point of now, it's made up of what would be left of finiteness, in its most fundamental decayed state of eternal fundamental substance. Whether that be fundamental photonic substance, or EEP as you like to call it, that's fine with me. The point is, the first law of thermodynamics requires it to be infinitely eternally existing___period. And the second law of thermodynamics requires it to eternally cycle.] Is it the FPS from the decayed state after ... [Absolutely correct...]
Whoa. Do you define your terms somewhere? What is finite decay of our universe?[Hawking figured and defined this state of fundamental matter back in the seventies, and recorded it in his book on "Time". It just the state of fundamental matter that's left after enough years of finite decay, which he figured at 10^137 years, then. Others figures vary somewhat, but all are in a very large time ballpark. The laws of physics require the decay to always be some form of fundamental matter, even energy, as it's truly matter, in its thinnest density form.] I think you are saying that our universe, i.e. the matter anyway, will decay.[Exactly.] How?[It already is, ain't it? Stars shine, metal rusts, matter radiates___All things decay, with enough time, except the most absolute fundamental substance. I see that as dark photonic matter/energy___matter's thinnest density state possible.] And why into "fundamental photonic substance" instead of back into the sub-atomic particles from the crunch?[What would the difference be? I see none. FS is fundamental photonic substance, i.e., the extreme most sub-atomic particles from the crunch.]

I like you hear you talk about and make a distinction between “our” universe and the greater universe and maybe that is the part that you say comes closest to your thinking; Am I right?[Yes, part of it, but the general mechanics, as well.]
Now Lloyd, that is my biggest problem with BBT and the mainstream.[I'm not mainstream. I hated the BBT for a long time, also, but then I discovered the universe's simple mechanics required some sort of hot bang, whether a one bang idea or a many bangs model. I finally settled back to the BBT, as it, and only it, allows all my model's pieces to fit and function mechanically, properly.] I cannot abide a singularity.[But, the universe is a singularity of thermal/motion/matter.] I even went so far as to predict that there will be a unifying particle (the EEP) discovered that explains away the singularity of BBT.[I think the problem lies with each's use of the words, and that a first star is required to exist to form any type of universe, now is it not? And, this is all I mean by singularity___First finite visible thermal/matter/motion. Size, type and mechanics are not as important, as the fact, a first had to exist, for any type of physical existence___True?]

I don’t think of the big crunch as a singularity because I explain (an overview anyway) the physics of it in my blog entry about defeating entropy.[This is the old Hawking idea of defeating entropy, and I think invalid. My model does not require the temporary defeat of entropy. Entropy stays whole and soundly, classically mechanically functioning, in my model. As a matter of fact, it can't function, without the proper mechanical functioning of entropy, and all of thermodynamics' symmetry of physical laws.]

I don’t want to assume that I understand the difference between the two but I am thinking that you see the crunch/bang much like I see the potentially infinite number of finite arenas at any given time across the greater universe?[I see no difference in our thinking, here.] Are there multiple crunch/bangs here and there across the greater universe?[As to the universe's past history___There certainly would have been___Yes.]

I need to defend the EEP since no one else can, . The EEP is not a particle substance. It is the energy background of the greater universe.[Describe physically, an energy, any energy, the real absolute energy, without the use of particle substance. I think you may find this quite impossible. This is where David and I realized the most fundamental of energy, must truly be of a FS, to have existence.] It consists of tiny discrete packets of energy that cannot be thought of as material particles.[You see, here you're just describing an abstract, inside an abstract idea___where's the substance?] The “particle” reference means they are all exactly alike; they all exist independent from each other while in the background.[That's fine.] The energy density of the background is the number of EEP divided by the volume of space.[That's fine also.] Energy density dictates whether a particular patch of space is going to expand, or the other option is that it isn’t going to expand because its energy density is already equalized with the energy density of the greater universe.[That's fine also.] The energy density of space never contracts.[You'd have to define energy density, as verses matter density differences, for my understanding of the mechanics to make sense, here, as I've stated many times, the energy/matter density, I truly see as one and the same, of different densities only.] Only matter contracts when gravity pulls matter from the greater universe and attracts it into a crunch.[And in my view, only matter contracts, when cold thermodynamics pushes matter from the greater universe, and attraction only enters the equation, after enough fusion forms, at the center of mass, to form first gravity, and real matter/energy particles.]

The EEPs are indestructible and have always existed.[Agreed, I just see them as photonic fundamental substance, i.e., thinnest matter density state possible.]

Are you saying that there is a background substance that occupies all space that you call FPS?[Absolutely.]

How does the matter (i.e. galaxies, black holes, dust of our expanding universe) “decay”? Does it decay into FPS?[Yes, it absolutely has too. There's no other physical mechanical and law option possible.] What is the difference between our expanding universe and the greater universe; is it that you would call it “our expanding universe” until the decay is complete, and then you would say that the decayed universe becomes part of the greater universe?[Exactly correct.]
Have you defined what you mean by the terms “thermodynamic/hydrodynamic forces”?[Exactly as classical, quantum and relative mechanics have always defined them.]

And as Greg asked me earlier in the thread, what causes the contraction? I said "gravity".[And I say gravity is created by the greater thermodynamic cold contraction, on into fusion and expansion/explosions. IMO, gravity is the difference between the thermal implosion and explosion universal mechanics___The Thermal Ping-Pong Cosmological Mechanics. The universe contracts, until it must explode, in its never-ending cycle. It's just the opposites of thermal extremes of FS, forever.]

If I understand, the FPS forms into a crunch and then sub-atomic particles form within the crunch, right?[That's exactly as I see it, yes.] How does the crunch result in expansion?[Fusion, through hydrodynamics, just as all stars mechanically function. If you study the hydrodynamics of stars, you can quite easily understand this. Also, the first atomic bomb theorizing used hydrodynamics, to understand nuclear processes, back in the fourties.] How does matter form from the expansion;[It doesn't form from the expansion. It forms from the hydrodynamics of the high pressure contraction. Just realize how fast, and how much kinetic energy a finite ball of FS matter would possess, of the size and intensity of 10^137 years in size, coming all the way from the greater universe's central infinity. You can see this mechanics by realizing the decay mechanics, in years, and the return route requiring the same number of years, due to the constraints of the true speeds of light/matter/motions required and possible, in such mechanics.] are we talking about a primordial soup like in BBT and trillions of degrees of temperature, and Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, expansion and cooling, photon decoupling, and CMBR generation before the first stars form like in BBT?[Absolutely correct, again, yes.]
Thank you!

You are quite welcome,
Bogie