Quantum Wave Cosmology is my TOE :)

[Bogie]

I agree that there can be no edge, and even suggesting an eternal structure in the form of a blackhole/whitehole continuum implies an existence within nonexistence.

Yes, any finite universe, whether a blackhole/whitehole continuum or a finite expanding universe that exists within nonexistence (surrounded by nothingness) suggests an impenetrable boundary that is no more detectable than a center, but if the universe is finite and expanding, it has a center. If there is a center and if it is finite, there are boundaries. That type of boundary does not exist in QWC because QWC is described from an axiomatic foundation of three infinities; space, energy, and time.

Infinite and eternal are related in the same sense as space and time, but time is dependent upon mass in motion. If there is no space empty of the UM, and all mass consists of the UM, mass cannot be conceived to be in motion.

This statement carries with it several assumptions that are not the case in QWC. I accept the analogy between infinite/eternal and space & time.

The impression you give though about mass being composed of UM is wrong in QWC. Mass is composed of waves that traverse the UM. Waves carry energy. The UM alone, without waves, has no usable energy.

[Bogie]

I will find a crack soon and exploit it ..... rotflmao

Lol, even QWC has gaps. I'd be glad to list some:
There is no evidence of arenas outside our own unless you get excited by dark flow.
There is no evidence that compression can negate quarks or that there is a limit to energy density, yet QWC depends on it.
There is no evidence for the concept that the burst of a big crunch requires a finite amount of mass and energy, i.e. critical capacity to make a crunch burst into expansing wave energy.
There is no evidence that the initial expansion of wave energy from a big burst would form high density spots as it encounters microwave energy in the universal cosmic microwave background.
There is no evidence for any of it that goes beyond known science.

But I think there is a big difference between gaps and cracks, lol.

I see the universe as a drop within the Fundamental Substance. Or the 'Cosmos'

QWC is compatible with that concept. A "drop" would be an arena like our known observable expanding "universe" called an arena in QWC. The "cosmos" could equate to the potentially infinite arena landscape of the greater universe of QWC.

[Bogie]

You're doing an adequate job, Bogie, but yes I know you like to type.

You will notice what happened to your comment about what the universe expands into if finite...there is bound to be certain aspects of theories that run into circular momentum. To say that I am sure that the absolute universe is absolute, and that invoking infinity disallows the CP; the CP has to be based on one arena expanding - the standard model - otherwise we would run into darkflow problems fubar.

I think you have it . An expanding universe can comply with the cosmological principle (CP) but not the perfect cosmological principle (PCP) because an expanding universe is not homogeneous and isotropic over eternity; an expanding universe had a beginning that no one can explain.

When Dave was around he suggested to me that universe can have different meanings, and that citation Greg posted re: the cosmos implies that the universe is not the cosmos. The cosmos is the omniverse...and he was pressed to admit that everything is within a void. So even though QWC is different than BBC, the infinite/finite problems are inescapable. There can be no such tiny places or space or sizes when infinity is proposed, because all of the space separating the arenas of the infinite landscape would have to be filled with an infinite number of arenas.

Not exactly but we agree if you are saying that you view the universe as infinite.

The point you make about there having to be something in the space between arena is not really an issue because arenas are best defined by their wave energy density. As an arena expands the wave energy density declines but never reaches equalization with the surrounding space. When I talk of corridors of continuity I am not talking about empty space or even space where the wave energy density is equalized at some minimum level. The corridors of continuity are where the portions of parent arenas that aren't captured in the overlaps go. Those portions still have a unique average wave energy density that differers from the surrounding space but the surrounding space is a mixture of greatly expanded old arena remnants that will eventually fall into an overlap somewhere along the line. But the galaxy remnants eventually burn out and turn into cold matter that does not emit EM. Asteroids could be examples of this type of material that hasn't found a gravity home yet, lol.

I know that your picture is one of separated arenas expanding over the proper amount of time for the mechanics to work, the overlapping of arenas over time. But we have to understand, even if we don't agree with the consensus, why scientists avoid infinity. Expanding into nothing can be ignored, focusing on what occurs within the observable universe; but all things expanding into each other can't be ignored because it affects what occurs within the observable universe as well.

Granted, and I account for that in QWC by predicting that our mature arena will experience interruption of the separation momentum of its galaxies when our arena intersects with an adjacent arena. A kind of dark flow is what would be apparent when that occurs.

[Graybeard]

an expanding universe had a beginning that no one can explain.

What part of it didn't I explain ?

greg

[Bogie]

What part of it didn't I explain ?

greg

The part where you told me about it, lol. OK, are you saying there was a beginning? Tell me about it in 100 words or less and don't tell me to CLICK something. Was it "God did it"? Was it "something from nothing"? Take the 100 word challenge.

[Graybeard]

It had no beginning. Your post made that claim.

cool bananas ... greg

[Bogie]

It had no beginning. Your post made that claim.

cool bananas ... greg

Good man. Now since Nob has weighed in on the difference between the cosmological principle (CP) and the perfect cosmological principle (PCP), where do you stand on it; do you agree with the PCP?

[Graybeard]

Good man. Now since Nob has weighed in on the difference between the cosmological principle (CP) and the perfect cosmological principle (PCP), where do you stand on it; do you agree with the PCP?

Unless you can explain it in a simpler form (100 words) I don't understand it ?

greg

[Bogie]

It has to do with how the universe looks to an observer. The cosmological principle, the one that applies to the Big Bang Theory for example, says the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. It looks the same from any point and no center can be detected, all points seem like they could be in the center or that there is no center,you can't tell.

The perfect cosmological principle adds one thing to that. I says that not only is the universe homogeneous and isotropic, it has been that way for eternity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect...ical_Principle

[Graybeard]

I see the FS as eternal but not the universe.

cool bananas ... greg