Homogeneity and Isotropy

[Bogie]

This post contains new content about how the homogeneity and isotropy of the universe equally support BBT and the ISU.

Homogeneity and Isotropy of the ISU

The cosmological principle is a cornerstone of cosmology. For the principle to apply, the whole universe described by a cosmology must be considered homogeneous and isotropic. The expanding curved space-time of BBT is the best known example of a whole universe that is homogeneous, isotropic, that has no edge and where every point can be considered the center. As the expansion proceeds, the volume of curved space-time increases. Expansion causes every point to move away from every other point at the exact same rate. Since that is roughly consistent with what we observe, and there is no reason the think we are at the center ourselves, it seems to support BBT.

However, the apparent movement observed from any random location is not proof of center-less space; it is only evidence of expansion as opposed to explosion. It is not proof that there is no edge; it is evidence that supports the theory that the edge is beyond the observable portion of the universe just as well as it supports BBT.

So a pervasive consistent rate of recession from all points could mean that BBT is right, or it could just mean the edge is out of sight. If the edge is advanced far enough so that it is beyond the observable universe then the lack of an orientation to the center from any random point would be entirely compatible with expansion from a center point.

The ISU is homogeneous and isotropic, is infinite spatially, filled with energy, and our universe is expanding within a tiny arena of that infinite space.

The ISU is not only supported by the evidence just like BBT, but unlike BBT the ISU doesn’t have to track back to a singularity because it predicts a big crunch origin of expansion.

It is argued that though expansion can support both BBT and the ISU, there is the fact that not only is there the pervasive consistent rate of recession but there is the CMBR too which supports BBT.

CMBR in the ISU

The background temperature of the universe is very low, only a few degrees Kelvin. This temperature background is the same in any direction with only slight anisotropy consistent with a violent high energy origin of the universe. Polarization exists that is consistent with the natural formation and interaction of known particles in space. Calculations show that these characteristics of the background are compatible with and were even predicted by BBT and the early exponential expansion scenario of inflation.

However, though rejected by BBT, there is still the consideration that the expansion that we are experiencing started in an environment that was at only a fraction of a degree Kelvin. If matter formed from such an environment and was characterized by subsequent photon generation as a natural consequence of the existence of matter, then the temperature that we detect in the background today would likely be elevated from the cold start by a few degrees as a result.

The ISU is characterized by a near zero degree Kelvin origin of a fully negated big crunch that started as an extreme radiation event, eventually consumed its own heat and radiation, had its matter negated to extremely dense energy, lost its mass and gravity as matter became energy, and burst free as the potential energy of extreme energy density was converted to expansion of energy expanding in space. It expands as a high energy density environment released within a low energy density environment. Matter formed from the high energy density as the density diminished and the resulting photons which form concurrent with matter formation account for the introduction of heat. The two or three degree elevation in temperature over the ~14 billion years of expansion is the sum effort of all of the photons whose population starts at near zero and never stops increasing until negation occurs in distant and future crunches.

The slight anisotropy is caused by the thermalized remnants of the death of an epoch of hydrogen stars that are the natural consequences of the earliest stable particles, protons, surrounded by their electrons. The preponderance of hydrogen supports the hydrogen epoch and the relatively high level of helium supports the concept that the hydrogen epoch was characterized by a homogeneous and isotropic universe filled with huge helium factories in the form of hot, fast burning hydrogen stars.

The normal life of those hydrogen giants was a short but productive period of neutron generation from particle chaos: a high energy, gamma radiation, and matter/antimatter interaction period causing nucleosynthesis followed by explosions and collapses, leaving a temperature gradient signature in the debris. Photons that were emitted from different layers within those hydrogen stars gave rise to the slight anisotropy of the background radiation. The thermalization period that followed the hydrogen epoch accounted for the near perfect black body radiation of the background.

Surviving the thermalization period, the remnants in the form of dust, light elements and remnant black holes left over by the now extinct hydrogen stars were the seeds of subsequent galactic formation and the resulting metallization of the universe.

At least the evidence supports the ISU scenario as well as BBT, and with the ISU the singularity is eliminated and exponential expansion is not necessary.

[Bogie]

This thread has had no "takers" but was meant to be a companion thread the the "No Solid Particles..." thread (which was just closed by the 30 day rule) to help convey the concept of the ISU and encourage anyone who thinks that there was a "before and beyond" the big bang to come out and play.

The ISU Field Theory is being developed to bring the conservation up a level in hopes some of you will exchange ideas with me about the "before and beyond" the big bang, challenge my ideas, and say what you think is wrong with them, and offer improved ideas that are more reasonable and responsible. Though all of this is in the realm of speculation, reasonable and responsible speculation has a place.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-field-ph.html

Field
From: The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition | Date: 2007
Print Digg del.icio.us
Field in physics: region throughout which a force may be exerted; examples are the gravitational, electric, and magnetic fields that surround, respectively, masses, electric charges, and magnets. The field concept was developed by M. Faraday based on his investigation of the lines of force that appear to leave and return to a magnet at its poles (see flux, magnetic ). Fields are used to describe all cases where two bodies separated in space exert a force on each other. The alternative to postulating a field is to assume that physical influences can be transmitted through empty space without any material or physical agency. Such action-at-a-distance, especially if it occurs instantaneously, violates both common sense and certain modern theories, notably relativity , which posits that nothing can travel faster than light. In a field description, rather than body A directly exerting a force on body B, body A (the source) creates a field in every direction around it and body B (the detector) experiences the field that exists at its position. If a change occurs at the source, its effect propagates outward through the field at a constant speed and is felt at the detector only after a certain delay in time. The field is thus a kind of "middleman" for transmitting forces. Each type of force (electric, magnetic, nuclear, or gravitational) has its own appropriate field; a body experiences the force due to a given field only if the body itself it also a source of that kind of field. The reciprocity implied by Newton's third law of motion (equal action and reaction) is thus preserved. If two bodies exert a mutual force, they possess potential energy that depends on their relative positions; it is natural to regard this energy as residing in the field the bodies create.

The above description and usage of the term “field” is adopted by the ISU Field Theory. In the ISU, the gravitation field is not exactly like the scalar fields connected to gravity in Friedmann-Robertson-Walker backgrounds, and spacetime is not curved as such. That is not to say that objects in a gravitational field of the ISU do not move almost exactly as they are predicted to move in GTR because they do. The difference is the coupling of space and time in GTR and the mode of transmission of force through space.

Curved spacetime is a beautiful thing and it is the best yet at predicting the movement of objects in spacetime, but it is wrong from the perspective of the ISU Field theory. It is wrong because the correct theory will accommodate the infinite existence of space that had no start time. It is wrong because the correct theory will accommodate a pre-existing energy that is now occupying our expanding arena in space. It is wrong because the correct theory will allow science to explore the “before and beyond” the big bang without having to pay due respect to the gradual turns and slow direction changes characteristic of the scientific community.

In the ISU I am busy thinking about the source and cause of the big bang instead of bowing to the proclaimed uselessness of such thought. In the ISU I am busy thinking through the kind of energy background that would enable our expanding universe to exist within an infinite “greater universe”. In the ISU I am busy thinking about particles and specifically a unifying particle that explains all forces and of which all matter is composed.

Throw up you hands at me. Raise every complaint about my methods. Act as if no one who leaves the Internet foot print that I have left could possibly be right. Just stick with the principle that if I can’t prove any of my theories then they aren’t worth thinking about.

Now I know that I am not hitting the nail on the head as to why you (most of you) won’t play with me. There are as many reasons as there are of you who read my ideas and “take a pass” on replying with anything constructive. Most of you are kind enough not to “wise crack” and play to the community’s fondness to see those with my approach put in their place. Thank you for that.

Then there is the issue of confidence in the scientific community that tells you in your heart that if there was anything to my ideas, the community would be way out front of me in getting to the truth. So I must either be wrong or at best inconsequential. And to that I say, “True, but this is what I do .”

Why do I do it? It seems that I have an idea that makes for a simpler universe. I have an idea that offers an explanation of where our universe came from, of why it is expanding, why the expansion is accelerating, what causes the effects that “dark matter” is supposed to explain, how mass forms, what causes gravity, where is the anti-matter, and why the hydrogen and helium abundance.

If you just consider the unifying particle and the energy background of the infinite universe containing such a particle as "the field", then it is within the realm of reasonable and responsible speculation to talk about the ISU in the terms I have been developing. Defining the terms as I go and adding them to the ISU Glossary will give everyone ample opportunity to reply in some constructive way.

My next thread will be about the ISU Field Theory and for thirty days I will defend what I have to say. See you there? I know, ha. (PM or email me if you want to play but don't want to be seen with me. In your heart you suspect I'm right, don't you?)

[Nereid]

[snip]

At least the evidence supports the ISU scenario as well as BBT, and with the ISU the singularity is eliminated and exponential expansion is not necessary.

It does?

Unless I have misunderstood your many posts on this topic Bogie, or missed some key ones, this ISU idea remains purely qualitative - did I miss something?

Unless there is a quantitative exposition of "the ISU scenario", at least wrt the CMB, how can the observational results be said to "support" it?

I'm particularly intrigued by the "as well as BBT" claim; it seems to me there's no basis for such a claim, if only because there's no quantitative exposition of "the ISU scenario".

[Bogie]

This ISU is about a “before and beyond” the big bang. Won’t you agree that BBT does not address the issue except to say “we can’t know”?

If exponential expansion is necessary to bring science to a reasonable and responsible time line for BBT, and such superluminal expansion is not necessary in the ISU, then the ISU proposes an immediate simplification when compared to BBT.

In regard to CMB, the BBT starts with hot and nearly infinitely dense matter smaller than the size of a proton. The ISU starts with a big crunch from pre-existing matter and energy in the pre-existing space of a greater universe. Let’s weigh again what is reasonable and responsible. The ISU doesn’t need a singularity. BBT can’t explain itself without a singularity.

The CMB has been surveyed and studied and it has been seen to support the hot infinitely dense beginning of spacetime. It even is said that predictions of BBT have proved out in regard to the few degrees Kelvin and the slight anisotropy. This is the calling card to rally support around the Big Bang? Why couldn’t the reasonable and responsible big crunch and big burst from pre-existing conditions that I have predicted be supported by the same evidence? In my many posts I have proposed how that could be the case.

Quantification of BBT is centered on curved spacetime and big bang nucleosynthesis if I’m not mistaken. Curved spacetime does a fine job of predicting the movement of objects as I said in my last post, but there is only theory about how that movement comes about, not how gravity works. The ISU has a theory too, and it doesn’t require a singularity, exponential expansion, or curved spacetime. It simply identifies the cause of gravity as a field of energy that has the characteristic of connecting all mass and generating photons that are formed from the energy field as gravity occurs.

I look forward to the advances in science that will provide an explanation for the cause of gravity, not just an almost perfect ability to predict what it will do. In the ISU gravity looks almost exactly like curved spacetime. The only way to tell the difference is to compare how reasonable and responsible the two ideas are.

On the one hand we have BBT, a singularity, a hot big bang from almost nothing and almost nowhere, that expands exponentially just long enough to establish a causal connection between what we observe and how it might tie back to the Big Bang, a scenario of big bang nucleosynthesis that needs anti-matter that can’t be found, and uses cooling from what seems to be an impossible heat and density to establish a “what if” of how matter formed from the soup, and then a team of scientists go to work to find evidence and show how it supports the theory. They have to change the theory from time to time of course but that is to be expected with any unfolding science.

On the other hand we have the ISU, a big crunch that consumes its own radiation until the heat and density reach a limit that matter and photons themselves cannot stand, and that results in a huge burst of energy from the big crunch. Since radiation is photons, and photons are consumed in the crunch before the burst, that burst is a release of energy in the form of unifying particles with little or no temperature in the abscence of photons. The expansion is a natural result from a high energy density burst into a low energy density surrounding. Matter forms from the expanding energy when the density gets low enough for the unifying particles to start combining. I too have made changes from my early threads about the elementary energy particle and what characteristics I think it must have, but like with changes to BBT along the way, that is the result of how ideas unfold.

That is how I see the difference and how I make the comparisons, and that is an overview of how I can make the statement that the evidence supports the ISU scenario as well as BBT.

[Nereid]

Bogie, the post of yours I am quoting here is full of mis-statements and misconceptions about BBT; may I recommend you read this site, and the references in it, to acquaint yourself with what it actually says? If you still have questions, please start new threads in BAUT's Q&A section.

This ISU is about a “before and beyond” the big bang. Won’t you agree that BBT does not address the issue except to say “we can’t know”?

If exponential expansion is necessary to bring science to a reasonable and responsible time line for BBT, and such superluminal expansion is not necessary in the ISU, then the ISU proposes an immediate simplification when compared to BBT.

In regard to CMB, the BBT starts with hot and nearly infinitely dense matter smaller than the size of a proton. The ISU starts with a big crunch from pre-existing matter and energy in the pre-existing space of a greater universe. Let’s weigh again what is reasonable and responsible. The ISU doesn’t need a singularity. BBT can’t explain itself without a singularity.

The CMB has been surveyed and studied and it has been seen to support the hot infinitely dense beginning of spacetime.

It does ("support the hot infinitely dense beginning of spacetime")? References (papers) please!

It even is said that predictions of BBT have proved out in regard to the few degrees Kelvin and the slight anisotropy. This is the calling card to rally support around the Big Bang? Why couldn’t the reasonable and responsible big crunch and big burst from pre-existing conditions that I have predicted be supported by the same evidence? In my many posts I have proposed how that could be the case.

I don't recall reading any such in which any quantification - or equations, or even consistent definitions - were presented. Perhaps I missed them; please provide links to posts which contain relevant equations and quantifications.

Quantification of BBT is centered on curved spacetime and big bang nucleosynthesis if I’m not mistaken. Curved spacetime does a fine job of predicting the movement of objects as I said in my last post, but there is only theory about how that movement comes about, not how gravity works. The ISU has a theory too, and it doesn’t require a singularity, exponential expansion, or curved spacetime. It simply identifies the cause of gravity as a field of energy that has the characteristic of connecting all mass and generating photons that are formed from the energy field as gravity occurs.

It seems there is a pretty basic communication gap here ... from what I've read in posts in this ATM section, there is no ISU 'theory', in the standard, scientific (cosmology) meaning of that word.

Please provide links to relevant posts, in which this ISU 'theory' is described, including the parts which provide a consistent set of relationships with the standard (physics) terms 'gravity', 'field', 'energy', 'mass', 'photons' and so on.

I look forward to the advances in science that will provide an explanation for the cause of gravity, not just an almost perfect ability to predict what it will do. In the ISU gravity looks almost exactly like curved spacetime.

It does?

Where may one compare the relevant ISU equations with, for example, the Einstein Field Equations?

Alternatively, where may one read the details of how the ISU 'theory' confronts the relevant experimental and observational evidence?

The only way to tell the difference is to compare how reasonable and responsible the two ideas are.

Why not compare the two in terms of how well they approach GR and the Standard Model in the appropriate 'limit' domains?

On the one hand we have BBT, a singularity, a hot big bang from almost nothing and almost nowhere, that expands exponentially just long enough to establish a causal connection between what we observe and how it might tie back to the Big Bang, a scenario of big bang nucleosynthesis that needs anti-matter that can’t be found, and uses cooling from what seems to be an impossible heat and density to establish a “what if” of how matter formed from the soup, and then a team of scientists go to work to find evidence and show how it supports the theory. They have to change the theory from time to time of course but that is to be expected with any unfolding science.

On the other hand we have the ISU, a big crunch that consumes its own radiation until the heat and density reach a limit that matter and photons themselves cannot stand, and that results in a huge burst of energy from the big crunch. Since radiation is photons, and photons are consumed in the crunch before the burst, that burst is a release of energy in the form of unifying particles with little or no temperature in the abscence of photons. The expansion is a natural result from a high energy density burst into a low energy density surrounding. Matter forms from the expanding energy when the density gets low enough for the unifying particles to start combining. I too have made changes from my early threads about the elementary energy particle and what characteristics I think it must have, but like with changes to BBT along the way, that is the result of how ideas unfold.

That is how I see the difference and how I make the comparisons, and that is an overview of how I can make the statement that the evidence supports the ISU scenario as well as BBT.

Just to be quite clear: there are no equations, no math, no numbers, and no quantitative outputs from these ISU ideas?

[Bogie]

Bogie, the post of yours I am quoting here is full of mis-statements and misconceptions about BBT; may I recommend you read this site, and the references in it, to acquaint yourself with what it actually says? If you still have questions, please start new threads in BAUT's Q&A section.

Thanks for the link and as always I enjoyed reading about BBT.

What I didn’t find were the mis-statements and misconceptions that you refer to.

Maybe we could go over my statements from the referenced post one by one:

“This ISU is about a “before and beyond” the big bang. Won’t you agree that BBT does not address the issue except to say “we can’t know”?”

What exactly is the position that BBT takes in regard to “before and beyond” the big bang if it is not “we can’t know”?

”If exponential expansion is necessary to bring science to a reasonable and responsible time line for BBT, and such superluminal expansion is not necessary in the ISU, then the ISU proposes an immediate simplification when compared to BBT.”

Are you saying that exponential expansion is not part of BBT or that it didn’t happen? I don’t think you are because that is the only way that there could be a causal connection between the observed universe, the GTR timeline, and the first picoseconds of big bang nucleosynthesis.

”In regard to CMB, the BBT starts with hot and nearly infinitely dense matter smaller than the size of a proton.”

Are you saying that the phrase “hot and nearly infinitely dense” doesn’t apply to the starting point in BBT or that big bang nucleosynthesis doesn’t start with all the matter in the universe within a volume smaller that a proton?

”The CMB has been surveyed and studied and it has been seen to support the hot infinitely dense beginning of spacetime. It even is said that predictions of BBT have proved out in regard to the few degrees Kelvin and the slight anisotropy.”

Why would you need references and papers covering how the scientific community has surveyed and studied the CMB. Are you saying that their findings don’t support BBT, aren’t part of BBT, or what? Are you saying that predictions made by the scientific community haven’t proved to be supported by WMAP, etc.?

”Quantification of BBT is centered on curved spacetime and big bang nucleosynthesis if I’m not mistaken. Curved spacetime does a fine job of predicting the movement of objects as I said in my last post, but there is only theory about how that movement comes about, not how gravity works.”

I take it that you don’t agree with what I said about BBT quantification being centered on GTR and big bang nucleosynthesis?

Why not answer the question that lead off the post:

“This ISU is about a “before and beyond” the big bang. Won’t you agree that BBT does not address the issue except to say “we can’t know”?”

What exactly is your position on what BBT says in regard to “before and beyond” the big bang if it is not “we can’t know” or “we just don’t know” or something on that order?

Just to be quite clear: there are no equations, no math, no numbers, and no quantitative outputs from these ISU ideas?

I didn’t say that the ISU was ready to take over as the standard cosmology. I think BBT is safe for the time being. I said that BBT doesn’t actually say where the expanding universe came from but it is implied that there was a singularity, a hot dense zero volume point. The ISU is intended to acknowledge a "before and beyond" the big bang in place of the implied singularity.

[Nereid]

Thanks for the link and as always I enjoyed reading about BBT.

What I didn’t find were the mis-statements and misconceptions that you refer to.

Maybe we could go over my statements from the referenced post one by one:


What exactly is the position that BBT takes in regard to “before and beyond” the big bang if it is not “we can’t know”?

Are you saying that exponential expansion is not part of BBT or that it didn’t happen? I don’t think you are because that is the only way that there could be a causal connection between the observed universe, the GTR timeline, and the first picoseconds of big bang nucleosynthesis.


Are you saying that the phrase “hot and nearly infinitely dense” doesn’t apply to the starting point in BBT or that big bang nucleosynthesis doesn’t start with all the matter in the universe within a volume smaller that a proton?



Why would you need references and papers covering how the scientific community has surveyed and studied the CMB. Are you saying that their findings don’t support BBT, aren’t part of BBT, or what? Are you saying that predictions made by the scientific community haven’t proved to be supported by WMAP, etc.?

I take it that you don’t agree with what I said about BBT quantification being centered on GTR and big bang nucleosynthesis?

Why not answer the question that lead off the post:

What exactly is your position on what BBT says in regard to “before and beyond” the big bang if it is not “we can’t know” or “we just don’t know” or something on that order?

I didn’t say that the ISU was ready to take over as the standard cosmology. I think BBT is safe for the time being. I said that BBT doesn’t actually say where the expanding universe came from but it is implied that there was a singularity, a hot dense zero volume point. The ISU is intended to acknowledge a "before and beyond" the big bang in place of the implied singularity.

If you still have questions, please start new threads in BAUT's Q&A section.

If you still have questions, about details of the BBT, please start new threads in BAUT's Q&A section.

=======================================

Here are the (direct, pertinent) questions that I asked, about the ATM idea you presented in this thread, as you presented them. I have not seen any answers to them yet; would you please answer them?

I don't recall reading any such¹ in which any quantification - or equations, or even consistent definitions - were presented. Perhaps I missed them; please provide links to posts which contain relevant equations and quantifications.

Please provide links to relevant posts, in which this ISU 'theory'² is described, including the parts which provide a consistent set of relationships with the standard (physics) terms 'gravity', 'field', 'energy', 'mass', 'photons' and so on.

It³ does?

Where may one compare the relevant ISU equations with, for example, the Einstein Field Equations?

Alternatively, where may one read the details of how the ISU 'theory' confronts the relevant experimental and observational evidence?

Why not compare the two⁴ in terms of how well they approach GR and the Standard Model in the appropriate 'limit' domains?

Just to be quite clear: there are no equations, no math, no numbers, and no quantitative outputs from these ISU ideas?

1 Bogie: Why couldn’t the reasonable and responsible big crunch and big burst from pre-existing conditions that I have predicted be supported by the same evidence? In my many posts I have proposed how that could be the case.

2 Nereid: It seems there is a pretty basic communication gap here ... from what I've read in posts in this ATM section, there is no ISU 'theory', in the standard, scientific (cosmology) meaning of that word.

3 Bogie: In the ISU gravity looks almost exactly like curved spacetime.

4 Bogie: The only way to tell the difference is to compare how reasonable and responsible the two ideas are.

[Bogie]

If you still have questions, about details of the BBT, please start new threads in BAUT's Q&A section.

=======================================

Here are the (direct, pertinent) questions that I asked, about the ATM idea you presented in this thread, as you presented them. I have not seen any answers to them yet; would you please answer them?

I don't recall reading any such¹ in which any quantification - or equations, or even consistent definitions - were presented. Perhaps I missed them; please provide links to posts which contain relevant equations and quantifications.

Please provide links to relevant posts, in which this ISU 'theory'² is described, including the parts which provide a consistent set of relationships with the standard (physics) terms 'gravity', 'field', 'energy', 'mass', 'photons' and so on.

It³ does?

Where may one compare the relevant ISU equations with, for example, the Einstein Field Equations?

Alternatively, where may one read the details of how the ISU 'theory' confronts the relevant experimental and observational evidence?

Why not compare the two⁴ in terms of how well they approach GR and the Standard Model in the appropriate 'limit' domains?

Just to be quite clear: there are no equations, no math, no numbers, and no quantitative outputs from these ISU ideas?

1 Bogie: Why couldn’t the reasonable and responsible big crunch and big burst from pre-existing conditions that I have predicted be supported by the same evidence? In my many posts I have proposed how that could be the case.

2 Nereid: It seems there is a pretty basic communication gap here ... from what I've read in posts in this ATM section, there is no ISU 'theory', in the standard, scientific (cosmology) meaning of that word.

3 Bogie: In the ISU gravity looks almost exactly like curved spacetime.

4 Bogie: The only way to tell the difference is to compare how reasonable and responsible the two ideas are.

By imagining and discussing the ISU I have gained a little understanding of physics.

Initially I imagined the ISU because I was under the impression that “science” said “we can’t know about "before and beyond" the big bang so we don’t talk about it”. I wanted to talk about it because I thought we should be able to figure it out.

I started what I called the “bottom up” approach to start the process of figuring it out, presenting ideas about the infinite spongy universe and the elementary energy particle.

All of my posts relate to those ideas and if I slip up and refer to them as theories and you object to the use of the word theory because the ideas are not testable, then that is another issue.

Now I understand that is not an issue of “science” saying “we can’t know”. It is an issue with gravity in the Planck regime being incompatible with GTR. Particle scientists want to explain all forces, including gravity, in terms of particles and fields, while GTR is our best method of predicting the movement of objects and it is purely mathematical, not physical, and three-dimensional space is not considered in the model.

I understand that GTR and EFEs are mathematical calculations that couple space and time to describe a curvature to gravitation fields and predict the relative movement of massive objects in spacetime based on the warping of spacetime by mass.

GTR uses four-dimensional warped spacetime. I use the term “Field” simply to describe all cases where two bodies separated in three-dimensional space exert a force on each other. GTR doesn’t describe any physical field in three-dimensional space. It says that physical influences are transmitted through empty spacetime without any material or physical agency because spacetime itself is warped by mass.

Three dimensional space is not a consideration in GTR or in BBT.

In GTR the only physical aspect of space is spacetime itself, and spacetime had a beginning 13.7 billion years ago if you backtrack the observed recession of galaxies using the formulas.

So my issue is with GTR and BBT, and not with "science" in general. My discussion of ideas about space being infinite are not considered pertinent in BBT because I am still talking about three dimensional space.

My discussions about a unifying particle are not pertinent to GTR but are pertinent to particle physics.

The problem is that I have been guilty of mixing the two and that may be why I have not found anyone to play with. As I learn more maybe I will get more responses.

I hope the above is stated in such a way that it is not necessary to answer you by following unnecessary assignments to go back to my previous posts. Your challenges seem intended to get me to demonstrate something form past posts that I never said in the first place or never intended. Maybe you are even basing you insistence on the use of the word “theory” instead of idea.

Your attention to my thread is appreciated. If you don't want to have a discourse based on my intentions for my threads, i.e. discussion about a greater universe and a unifying particle that is fine. Some people are constrained by requiring tests to prove hypotheses. Others, and the ones I am interested in attracting to the discussion are people who feel comfortable talking about ideas and offering ideas, not insisting on moving those ideas to theory and hypothesis before they are ready for that.

[Celestial Mechanic]

By imag[in]ing and discussing the ISU I have gained a little understanding of physics. [Snip!]

Get thee to a library and you can gain a greater understanding of physics.

[Bogie]

Get thee to a library and you can gain a greater understanding of physics.

Ok, I will.

I'm going now.

Before I go can you give me a lead to follow that might deal with what caused the initial expansion that we obserse and how the matter and or energy in our expanding universe gained existence.

I don't mean in terms of BBT or in terms of particle physics, I am over that problem. I mean discussion of the possibilities in language even I can understand that is presented from a scientific perspective.

[Nereid]

By imagining and discussing the ISU I have gained a little understanding of physics.

Initially I imagined the ISU because I was under the impression that “science” said “we can’t know about "before and beyond" the big bang so we don’t talk about it”. I wanted to talk about it because I thought we should be able to figure it out.

I started what I called the “bottom up” approach to start the process of figuring it out, presenting ideas about the infinite spongy universe and the elementary energy particle.

All of my posts relate to those ideas and if I slip up and refer to them as theories and you object to the use of the word theory because the ideas are not testable, then that is another issue.

Now I understand that is not an issue of “science” saying “we can’t know”. It is an issue with gravity in the Planck regime being incompatible with GTR. Particle scientists want to explain all forces, including gravity, in terms of particles and fields, while GTR is our best method of predicting the movement of objects and it is purely mathematical, not physical, and three-dimensional space is not considered in the model.

I understand that GTR and EFEs are mathematical calculations that couple space and time to describe a curvature to gravitation fields and predict the relative movement of massive objects in spacetime based on the warping of spacetime by mass.

GTR uses four-dimensional warped spacetime. I use the term “Field” simply to describe all cases where two bodies separated in three-dimensional space exert a force on each other. GTR doesn’t describe any physical field in three-dimensional space. It says that physical influences are transmitted through empty spacetime without any material or physical agency because spacetime itself is warped by mass.

Three dimensional space is not a consideration in GTR or in BBT.

In GTR the only physical aspect of space is spacetime itself, and spacetime had a beginning 13.7 billion years ago if you backtrack the observed recession of galaxies using the formulas.

So my issue is with GTR and BBT, and not with "science" in general. My discussion of ideas about space being infinite are not considered pertinent in BBT because I am still talking about three dimensional space.

My discussions about a unifying particle are not pertinent to GTR but are pertinent to particle physics.

The problem is that I have been guilty of mixing the two and that may be why I have not found anyone to play with. As I learn more maybe I will get more responses.

I hope the above is stated in such a way that it is not necessary to answer you by following unnecessary assignments to go back to my previous posts. Your challenges seem intended to get me to demonstrate something form past posts that I never said in the first place or never intended. Maybe you are even basing you insistence on the use of the word “theory” instead of idea.

Your attention to my thread is appreciated. If you don't want to have a discourse based on my intentions for my threads, i.e. discussion about a greater universe and a unifying particle that is fine. Some people are constrained by requiring tests to prove hypotheses. Others, and the ones I am interested in attracting to the discussion are people who feel comfortable talking about ideas and offering ideas, not insisting on moving those ideas to theory and hypothesis before they are ready for that.

Here's what you wrote, sometime earlier in this thread:

In the ISU gravity looks almost exactly like curved spacetime.

I challenged this (ATM) assertion thus:

It does?

Where may one compare the relevant ISU equations with, for example, the Einstein Field Equations?

Alternatively, where may one read the details of how the ISU 'theory' confronts the relevant experimental and observational evidence [on gravity]?

In the post you wrote - presumably as an answer to my direct, pertinent question (asked of the ATM idea, as presented) - that I quote, here, in full, I can't see any answers.

Would you be kind enough to point them out?

Let's try an even simpler question, about the ATM assertion: in what ways does 'gravity', in the ISU, differ from 'curved spacetime'? IOW, please expand on the part between 'looks exactly like' and 'looks almost exactly like'.

[Bogie]

...

Let's try an even simpler question, about the ATM assertion: in what ways does 'gravity', in the ISU, differ from 'curved spacetime'? IOW, please expand on the part between 'looks exactly like' and 'looks almost exactly like'.

Curved spacetime had a start point 13.7 billion years ago or so. In the ISU, there was no start point.

Curved spacetime uses warped space to influence bodies in four-dimensional space. The ISU uses an energy field that connects objects in three-dimensional space.

The energy field has energy density consisting of unifying particles. Matter forms from the energy field when the density permits, i.e. when the expansion has lowered the density sufficiently to allow the unifying particles to combine. Combined unifying particles form protons and electrons.

The resulting hydrogen atoms emit photons as a result of the continuing density of the energy field. Gravity results as the energy field replaces the energy that was sloughed by the emission of the photon because the emission of a photon collapses the electron creating a low energy density which is filled immediately as unifying particles from the field rush into the low energy density.

A new photon has thus been added to the arena from the energy field and the process is continual and repetitive. The resulting gravity is variable over time within an arena. An arena is the space occupied by an expanding universe like ours. The ISU predicts that space and energy are infinite, arenas are limited by "critical capacity" and so there are an infinite number of arenas at any given time.

[Cougar]

If you're going to use a nonstandard abbreviation or acronym, it's always good form to spell it out first. It is very presumptuous to assume everyone knows the abbreviation for your pet hypothesis. You'll get more readers if you make it easier on them and not assume they know what the heck you're talking about or what you're referring to....

[Bogie]

ISU is the Infinite Spongy Universe. It is the greater universe within which our expanding universe is playing out. Our universe occupies an "arena" within the greater universe. Funny that our two posts were almost simultaneous. Sorry about the abbreviation.

[Jerry]

ISU...Idaho State University?

[Bogie]

...

Let's try an even simpler question, about the ATM assertion: in what ways does 'gravity', in the ISU, differ from 'curved spacetime'? IOW, please expand on the part between 'looks exactly like' and 'looks almost exactly like'.

Here is a more complete answer to Nereid’s question and an advance look at ISU Field Theory that I plan to present right here on Baut.

Energy Density Equalization

The energy density of our expanding universe declines as expansion proceeds. Declining energy density occurs as the energy density of the background hosting our expanding universe and the energy density of our expanding universe go through a process of equalization.

Equalization is a characteristic of any two adjacent areas of varying energy density within the greater energy field. They tend toward the average energy density of the two areas combined. Therefore our expanding arena has a boundary or leading surface that marks the boundary where equalization is taking place.

Equalization occurs at the speed of light. This means that though we cannot detect the leading edge of expansion and we cannot detect a center point, there is an edge that is advancing at the speed of light.

The advance of the edge continues at the speed of light until the expansion is disturbed and ultimately overcome by overlaps with adjacent expanding universes within the greater multi-verse. Significant overlaps indicate that the expansion has nearly played out. As it plays out, each universe disburses its remnant galaxies, black holes, etc. into newly forming universes within the multi-verse. This marks the end of the advancing boundary of a particular universe, and by definition, that universe as become fully disbursed. It is replaced by surrounding universes that have engulfed it and are themselves in various stages of contraction and expansion.


The Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU)

The multiple universes make up the greater universe and the energy field contains the multi-verses (multiple universes). That is what I call the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU).

The ISU energy field is made of unifying energy particles which are the smallest increment of energy that can have any meaningful impact on matter formation or gravity.

The field is the source of both matter and gravity.

Gravity

The speed of energy density equalization equates to the speed of gravity across the energy field meaning that gravity acts at the speed of light in the ISU.

Light changes wave length when viewed from a moving observation point, and gravity changes intensity when experienced from a moving position. The force of gravity between two objects is exerted in a straight line because gravity always acts in the lowest energy density path through the field. Two separate objects in the energy field are always moving relative to each other and so the force of gravity between two objects always determines the path that the two objects will take. Any interruption in the movement of either of those two objects will change the force of gravity between them.

If a point of observation is accelerated or decelerated relative to another object in the field, the force of gravity expressed between them will change. Acceleration towards an object will be expressed as an increase in the force of gravity and deceleration will be expressed as a decrease in the force of gravity.

As I understand it this effect is common between Newtonian Gravity and GTR. Only very slight differences exist in the predicted impact of gravity between them. I guess Newtonian gravity was gravity in a steady state universe, GTR gravity considers the mass of the entire universe to have one common starting point, and my view of gravity considers gravity in the context of multiple universes.

If there were no other universes like our own, but instead only one expanding universe in which mass began as a single point, then GTR gravity and my view of gravity could result in identical predictions even though the cause of gravity would be entirely different.

But in my view there is a greater energy field that contains multiple universes in various stages of contraction and expansion. These multi-verses are connected by the energy field, they form and disburse their remnants into the greater universe from which new multi-verses form in an ongoing process.

Mass within any of the multi-verses, ours being no exception, can be located near to or far from the edge of expansion. Therefore gravity predictions within our arena must include both an adjustment for the proximity of the masses to the edge of our universe and for the proximity and mass content of adjacent multi-verses.

Because of the distances separating the multi-verses these adjustments are tiny and cannot be made unless the location of the edge and the location of mass in adjacent multi-verses are known.

[Test] The way that these locations can be determined is to perform GTR calculations from all points in our expanding universe. Comparing the actual movement of mass with the predictions will point out tiny errors. A GTR error table for our entire universe would result. From that error table, the location of mass within our arena relative to the edge, and the location of mass in our arena relative to the mass of adjoining arenas could be predicted. Grossly simplified, these predictions would be much like the existence and location of an undetected planet can be predicted by the perturbations of a star and known planets around it.

Since the speed of gravity and the speed of equalization between varying energy densities are equal and since the expansion edges of the multi-verses are traveling at the speed of light, gravitational influences within our universe and between adjacent multi-verses require a time adjustment.

I suspect that the time adjustment could be made by determining the size, location and relative movement of the adjacent multi-verses from the data collected in the error table described above.

In the mean time it is OK to go ahead and use GTR and let any tiny errors be attributed to the affect of the ISU.