[Lloyd Gillespie]

Nobody, the proof is you can't think logically, otherwise...

Lloyd

Originally Posted by N0B0DY Logically, I'm thinking that if I pointed in a northerly direction, my fingertip wouldn't be closer to the north pole of the universe than my elbow. Though if you can prove that the universe has a shape, or that the center of the self has a substance with an absolute central point, I'll concede.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

You're coming the closest Bogie, to understanding what I'm talking about. I just happen to see it even a bit more simpler than your model. The EEP, I see as FPS{fundamental photonic substance}, and the protons, electrons neutrons, etc., are formed in the big-crunch stage, after finite decay of our universe into the greater universe, and the greater universal thermodynamics, and possibly in conjunction with the past motions of other universal area matter/motion mechanics of gravity, force, etc. IMO, it takes a singularity{big-crunch} period to re-mass the decayed thinness of present finiteness, into the next cycle. It's a cycling universe, not a cyclic universe. Your EEP, must actually be of a particle substance, or there's no existence to it at all, this is why I offer a fundamental substance, that never decays, yet the finiteness we do observe, does decay to this very FPS, or some other such fundamental substance, but energy must always be recognized as its truer form of "substance in motion".

And for you Greg, any matter thinness state of fundamental matter after finite decay, to its true ground state, would certainly be subject to thermodynamic/hydrodynamic forces, in both directions of contraction{big-crunch} and expansion{big-bang}. And as a third corollary, mass is always required to be a self-centering action, just to exist___the mechanics of which, is too complex for this post.

Lloyd

p.s.
Good job explaining your view of the universal mechanics, Bogie... Thanks...

Originally Posted by Bogie Gravity. During the expansion you have two effects. One is the equalization of two energy density environments, our expanding universe and the greater universe that separates masses from each other. The other is gravity that attracts masses to each other. When expansion is complete, i.e. when the energy density is equalized, the galaxies and black holes and “dust” of our arena are set free out into the greater universe. All of that mass that is now moving under its own established momentum still exerts and is affected by gravity. Now picture a potentially infinite heritage of arenas “depositing” their remnants (galaxies, black holes, etc.) out in the equalized greater universe. The matter from numerous previous arenas will rendezvous and mix and mingle and come under the influence of gravity without the influence of expansion. Big crunches form from these conditions and lead to new arenas. Big crunches burst into expansion after the matter that goes into the crunch is “negated” back to EEPs. Gravity dictates it. It is as yet undiscovered physics that is enabled by the unifying particle that I predict will eventually be discovered. I call it the elementary energy particle (EEP) that I describe in my blog. The EEP engineers an “energy to matter to energy” process that plays out in the innumerable arenas that are always forming and “dissolving” across the greater universe. I hoping more people will read it. There are several more entries almost ready but if I keep posting entries it gets harder and harder for members of the community to wade through them. I want to enlist the help of the community as I work on the details of matter formation. I have a blog entry ready about the intimate details of how hydrogen atoms form from the energy density of space but right now they don’t have spin and angular momentum. If a few here get interested enough to offer suggestions as to how the proton and electron that form from the EEPs that make up the energy density of space acquire spin and angular momentum, then I can post my entry about the cause of gravity, and then the community might want to help in the description of how hydrogen stars are formed from the isotropic and homogeneous hydrogen environment.

[Bogie]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie You're coming the closest Bogie, to understanding what I'm talking about. I just happen to see it even a bit more simpler than your model. The EEP, I see as FPS{fundamental photonic substance},

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. 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?

… and the protons, electrons neutrons, etc., are formed in the big-crunch stage,

For comparisons between your idea and mine (I call mine the Infinite Spongy Universe cosmology btw), what does the big crunch form from? I mean what is it made up of on the input side? Is it the FPS from the decayed state after ...

after finite decay of our universe into the greater universe, and the greater universal thermodynamics, and possibly in conjunction with the past motions of other universal area matter/motion mechanics of gravity, force, etc.

Whoa. Do you define your terms somewhere? What is finite decay of our universe? I think you are saying that our universe, i.e. the matter anyway, will decay. How? And why into "fundamental photonic substance" instead of back into the 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?

IMO, it takes a singularity{big-crunch} period to re-mass the decayed thinness of present finiteness, into the next cycle.

Now Lloyd, that is my biggest problem with BBT and the mainstream. I cannot abide a singularity. 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 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.

It's a cycling universe, not a cyclic universe.

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? Are there multiple crunch/bangs here and there across the greater universe?

Your EEP, must actually be of a particle substance, or there's no existence to it at all,

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. It consists of tiny discrete packets of energy that cannot be thought of as material particles. The “particle” reference means they are all exactly alike; they all exist independent from each other while in the background. The energy density of the background is the number of EEP divided by the volume of space. 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. The energy density of space never contracts. Only matter contracts when gravity pulls matter from the greater universe and attracts it into a crunch.

this is why I offer a fundamental substance, that never decays,

The EEPs are indestructible and have always existed.

... yet the finiteness we do observe, does decay to this very FPS, or some other such fundamental substance, but energy must always be recognized as its truer form of "substance

Are you saying that there is a background substance that occupies all space that you call FPS?

How does the matter (i.e. galaxies, black holes, dust of our expanding universe) “decay”? Does it decay into FPS? 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?

And for you Greg, any matter thinness state of fundamental matter after finite decay, to its true ground state, would certainly be subject to thermodynamic/hydrodynamic forces,

Have you defined what you mean by the terms “thermodynamic/hydrodynamic forces”?

… in both directions of contraction{big-crunch} and expansion{big-bang}.

And as Greg asked me earlier in the thread, what causes the contraction? I said "gravity".

And as a third corollary, mass is always required to be a self-centering action, just to exist___the mechanics of which, is too complex for this post.

If I understand, the FPS forms into a crunch and then sub-atomic particles form within the crunch, right? How does the crunch result in expansion? How does matter form from the expansion; 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?

p.s. Good job explaining your view of the universal mechanics, Bogie... Thanks...

Thank you!

[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

[RascalPuff]

Dear Baud:
I think the center of the universe is the Present. The Eternal Now. Forever between the Past and the Future. Squared.

Thanks again for this great thread.

Regards,
-RP

[RascalPuff]

Dear Baud:
In response to the colloquial interrogatory: "What's up?"
Perhaps 'up' is the parameter of an ever accelerating universal spere, to infinity.
P.S.
IMO, your post is an exemplary benchmark of 'principles'.

Hope to hear more from you.

Best regards,
- RP

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Any space or matter shape you can think of, absolutely requires a center___Think about it... You can't logically think any other way... Lloyd

Where is the centre of the surface of a sphere?

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by michellemfry I accept the large picture of expansion, and embarassingly ask about a particle of expansion. All that expansion, and nothing to pin it down to, please don't laugh. I don't know where I get these silly world ideas. Maybe little expanders that open up space. Ok, stop laughing or go get your research on and get rich on me. Hi, Baud.

This, actually, isn't as crazy a point as you may think. Inflation is generally attributed to a scalar field, whose quantum particle is called the inflaton. We don't know what's driving the expansion of the universe yet, but it could be a scalar field, and then, through field theory, this would have its own particle.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by neutralino Where is the centre of the surface of a sphere?

Foolish wordplay accomplishes nothing... The question is impossible to reality...

Lloyd

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Foolish wordplay accomplishes nothing... The question is impossible to reality... Lloyd

It's not foolish wordplay, it's a question; obviously one to which you do not have an answer. The obvious reason for this is that some models of the universe do not have a centre. In fact, it defies the cosmological principle (the thing that actually allows us to do cosmology) to say that the universe has a centre.