Quantum Wave Cosmology is my TOE :)

[austintorn@aol.com]

The latest proof on the greater arena:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...se-multiverse/

[melanie]

Another arena, from the greater arena, overlapping ours?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...dark-flow.html

Great link thanks.

Multiverses huh, just mind boggling, like a stack of post-it's
Stairway to heaven.

[Bogie]

I have also read this.. and I disagree with the presumption. Expansion of space in my opinion is the telltale sign of black holes braking down mater into space-time, plus the coagulating of space causing some underlining direction as well.

Yet in nature we see two sides to most every thing, the right half is symmetrical to the left half. Could the influence be over distances spanning our universe?

Hi Greenbug, thank you for sharing. How into your views about black holes and spacetime are you. If you noticed earlier in my thread when I offered my definition of space, I didn't want to rush past it because obviously the consensus is Big Bang Theory, and spacetime is part of BBT. There are a majority of the scientific community who will side with your view.

I find though that when I try to get the answer from the spacetime community about what caused the Big Bang I get "we don't know, maybe can't know". One segment of the BBT community still says that before the Big Bang there was noting, no space, no time, no nothing. They are the group that agrees that the universe began with a singularity, a point in space with no volume that contained infinite energy density. Another segment will say that General Relativity only applies down to the Planck realm and then quantum mechanics has to take over to explain things like the presence of mass and gravity.

Are you into it enough to answer the question, "What caused the Big Bang"? Are you among those that accept the singularity since you mention the role of black holes? Where do you stand in regard to the origin of space itself, i.e. do you have any reason to believe that space has not alway existed and is infinite?

[Bogie]

The latest proof on the greater arena:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...se-multiverse/

This is amazing stuff. Science is slow to change and the talk of the universe being older than thought because there are now some indications that something lies beyond the event horizon or at least there is something that is influencing our expansion as if there was a huge massive cosmic structure out there is a big move. It sounds like the slant is that the unknown structure might still be causally connected to the Big Bang event instead of supporting my speculations that there might be a similar expanding arena with which our expanding arena could intersect and overlap. It will be interesting to watch and see if this is picked up by the mainstream.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Einstein’s equation goes to infinity at the singularity, which usually mean there’s a big problem; others, perhaps, more mystical, say that infinity is the answer, but, really, it is that “points” have no size, and so that cause problems.

In string theory there is size, but there are 10**500 formulas for a universe, and so they don’t know which one is ours. What a way to be strung along!

[Bogie]

Einstein’s equation goes to infinity at the singularity, which usually mean there’s a big problem; others, perhaps, more mystical, say that infinity is the answer, but, really, it is that “points” have no size, and so that cause problems.

In string theory there is size, but there are 10**500 formulas for a universe, and so they don’t know which one is ours. What a way to be strung along!

Lol, I have been strung along before and can tell when the string is getting stretched thin .

By the way, in regard to the singularity, in the math and in General Relativity there is the beginning singularity which I mentined in my post to greenbug that starts with that point that you mention and ends in what I like to reference, the Big Rip. But black holes are also considered singularities because of the break down of the math.

As for infinities, I can't get it through my pea brain how space cannot be infinite. Can you help me

[austintorn@aol.com]

Space could end where any of its content's influence ends. "Nothing" would be outside it, that is, as in not there in any way, being non-existence, as Nothing has no properties, zilch. We could try to stick a hand through the edge into "Nothing" but then again we might just be making more space through our influences: mass, radiation, etc., if that's what makes space.

This "Nothing" is akin to ProfPats's Void that he thinks must be "something" that, say, the universe's expansion goes "into", although the expansion surely can makes its own space, it would seem.

Another guy on TQ wanted to have finite energy spread over infinite space, he, realizing, of course, that energy itself could not be infinite since there would be no room remaining anywhere; but, another problem of anything real and finite and definite having been around forever is then what could have determined its amount, not to mention its location, its nature, its properties, and so forth.

His fluid-like energy swirled into the "solidity" of neutrons/protons, via compression, they eventually, after millions of years, turning at the speed of light, which was their limit of absorbing any more liquid energy, throwing off any more energy that tried to attach at the speed of light, this explaining why there is that speed limit.

[Bogie]

Yeah Bogie, we're not in any dis-agreement about an eternal infinite universe, as I argued the same ideas in David's thread. Dave's original post was just a visualizing strategy, as he also accepts it as eternal, just not infinite, as to matter and motion. I see it all as eternal and infinite, yet would stress Guille's model; Force<--Energy<--Matter-->Space-->Time(the way I'm looking at this__no beginning void_just eternal infinite...), as being the most valid eternal infinite state, forming fundamental energy, from the more fundamental eternal matter of the infinite, say__non-viscous fluidic field, or at the least, existing at the same time__as I've elsewhere said, as an inseparable triadic FS(fundamental substance__matter/motion/energy...)

It may be of interest to you to read that thread, as it's only 5 pages long, since it's what some of us members had speculated at that point... It's up to you...

Just offering a point of view that's already been explored, that may be of help, or not__that's all...

I just read your second post above today, and the second paragraph sounds a lot like the small bangs theories several of us have kicked around. I also like it, but have no proof it's a viable model... We're all waiting for you to come up with the proofs...

I am going through David's "Absolute Fundamentals" thread as you suggested. I'm a poor thinker meaning that it takes a lot of effort for me to engage new material and when I do so smoke starts to fog up my glasses pretty quick. I can see that even though the thread is only five pages, when I downloaded into MSWord it is 32 pages of size ten text. My pea brain immediately starts looking for short cuts and so I come to you. Including David and you, name the players who I should include when I apply serious contemplation, keeping in mind that it is a painful thing for me .

Edit: Never mind, thing it is going to be interesting enough to go through the whole thing.

[Bogie]

...

As for infinities, I can't get it through my pea brain how space cannot be infinite. Can you help me

Space could end where any of its content's influence ends. "Nothing" would be outside it, that is, as in not there in any way, being non-existence, as Nothing has no properties, zilch. We could try to stick a hand through the edge into "Nothing" but then again we might just be making more space through our influences: mass, radiation, etc., if that's what makes space.

This "Nothing" is akin to ProfPats's Void that he thinks must be "something" that, say, the universe's expansion goes "into", although the expansion surely can makes its own space, it would seem.

...

I understand what you are saying, that there could be an end to space and it would be meaningless to consider what would be beyond because there would be no "beyond". Space could be finite and so the universe would be finite spatially is what you are saying.

I don't think so because that is exactly the same as Big Bang Theory in regard to space being created with the Big Bang. You see, the problem is, where did the Big Bang come from. You have to say we don't know. Maybe you will say we can't know. Fine. But for me if there is something about space that we can't know, I prefer to say the thing we cannot know is why anyone would think it hadn't always been there and why some event like the Big Bang couldn't have occurred within existing space.

So give me your thinking about why the Big Bang couldn't have occurred within pre-existing space. I know why General Relativity says that, i.e. the math back tracks to a point in space-time, but why couldn't that origin point be just one of an infinite number of points across infinite pre-existing space?

[austintorn@aol.com]

I understand what you are saying, that there could be an end to space and it would be meaningless to consider what would be beyond because there would be no "beyond". Space could be finite and so the universe would be finite spatially is what you are saying.

I don't think so because that is exactly the same as Big Bang Theory in regard to space being created with the Big Bang. You see, the problem is, where did the Big Bang come from. You have to say we don't know. Maybe you will say we can't know. Fine. But for me if there is something about space that we can't know, I prefer to say the thing we cannot know is why anyone would think it hadn't always been there and why some event like the Big Bang couldn't have occurred within existing space.

So give me your thinking about why the Big Bang couldn't have occurred within pre-existing space. I know why General Relativity says that, i.e. the math back tracks to a point in space-time, but why couldn't that origin point be just one of an infinite number of points across infinite pre-existing space?

I agree that there had to something around before the Big Bang, or if there wasn't a Bang, then of some localization of our universe from some origin within the larger arena, such as your overlap theory; so, then, the origin was not from Nothing, as this would be impossible. That origin could have been of the quantum fluctuations going wild, which they would do if we waited long enough, for all probabilities eventually occur, even the rare ones.