Origins: Let’s build a so called ATS Model of the Universe

reply to post by BogieSmiles


No objection, thats pretty cool. Is the universe profane or highly sophisticated/advanced? Is the architecture/design involved in the universe dumb or intelligent? If energy/something/universe has always existed, was there a time, or times when it was not as good a quality (like how when humans first invent something it is not good quality, computer graphics, which then evolve over time to be clearer and more efficient)? What im basically asking is when you look around, what do you think of the quality of the universe? You know how old video game graphics are blocky and bad resolution, doesnt the universe have good resolution? Or is that just to our scale and perception, and really a more objective way to view the universe (is there an objective way, certainly dogs and ants and humans and scientific instruments all observe the universe differently, is there an absolute, correct, objective way to comprehend and perceive the universe?). But yes, I agree with the 3 infinities, though what do you think of einstein claiming space and time were intimately linked, I guess if you dont believe this system of universe had a beginning (big bang) then you believe the time (clock) of this universe was running before the moment scientists believe the big bang occurred, and that would mean space would have existed before that point as well. So you think Einstein's space time geometry is only a mathematical model that aids humans in discerning aspects about astronomical events relative to our position in space and velocity in it, and it is only a useful tool, yet not an intrinsic reality of reality?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by BogieSmiles

 

ImaFungi
reply to post by BogieSmiles 


No objection, thats pretty cool. 

Yes, cool.

I know it says something about my ego and lack of humility when I venture answers to questions like you like to toss out, but let it be known that though I luv to answer them, I don't think my answers are right, they are just my personal answers.

Is the universe profane or highly sophisticated/advanced? Is the architecture/design involved in the universe dumb or intelligent? If energy/something/universe has always existed, was there a time, or times when it was not as good a quality (like how when humans first invent something it is not good quality, computer graphics, which then evolve over time to be clearer and more efficient)? What im basically asking is when you look around, what do you think of the quality of the universe? You know how old video game graphics are blocky and bad resolution, doesnt the universe have good resolution? Or is that just to our scale and perception, and really a more objective way to view the universe (is there an objective way, certainly dogs and ants and humans and scientific instruments all observe the universe differently, is there an absolute, correct, objective way to comprehend and perceive the universe?).

One of the philosophical benefits of invoking the Infinities is that it allows an answer to questions like those, while revealing my personal philosophy, which I call Eternal Intent. Eternal Intent needs for the universe to have always existed and to be eternal, because otherwise, to attribute "intention" to it, would mean there had to be some deity or entity that intended for the universe to be as it is. Only in an eternal universe can we have Eternal Intent and still consider the universe to display a universal and eternal sameness. The universe is as it is, and could be no other way.

That is my answer to what I think the quality of the universe is; an eternal sameness of continual change. A entropy defeating perpetual big bang arena process that features an infinite number of active big bang arenas at any give time, always has, and always will.

But yes, I agree with the 3 infinities, though what do you think of einstein claiming space and time were intimately linked, I guess if you dont believe this system of universe had a beginning (big bang) then you believe the time (clock) of this universe was running before the moment scientists believe the big bang occurred, and that would mean space would have existed before that point as well. 

I do agree with the idea that within our big bang arena the concept of spacetime has merit, though I attribute the relative motion of objects to gravity and wave energy density. The merit is in Einstein's equations, the EFEs, which are our best quantification of the relative motion of objects. But the mechanism of gravity is missing. My cosmology invokes the mechanism that I briefly described to Bleeeeep, i.e. the imbalance in the directionally inflowing wave energy component of the standing wave patterns. And yes, I do believe the time clock was running at t=0 in our particular big bang arena. That is consistent with the idea of an eternal sameness on a grand scale; the grand scale being the big bang arena landscape that is characteristic of all large scale sections of the greater universe. So to confirm your statement, space has always existed and has always been infinite, in my model.

So you think Einstein's space time geometry is only a mathematical model that aids humans in discerning aspects about astronomical events relative to our position in space and velocity in it, and it is only a useful tool, yet not an intrinsic reality of reality?

Yes, I do.

I've proposed the thee Infinites as the premises of the so-call ATS model of the universe, with agreement from ImaFungi, and with no disagreement yet. You see how I have derived the big bang arena landscape from the three Infinites, given the observed expansion of the observable universe?

In a nutshell, there is the raw redshift data that simply suggests that the galaxies and galaxy groups are all moving away from each other, and that is really a big part of Big Bang Theory. The raw data gets redefined and re-calibrated mathematically to make it compatible with General Relativity and spacetime, but even I can agree that the big bang arena we live in is characterized by the separation of the galaxies. Given that, I would like to propose that the ATS model feature multiple big bangs. That is completely compatible with the Infinites and with the raw redshift data that is evidence of expansion in our arena's Hubble view.

What I'm suggesting is that though we can't see out to the edges of our expanding arena, we invoke the concept that there are other similar arenas out there, and that it is entirely reasonable to predict that our arena will converge with other similar arenas given sufficient expansion time. Someone earlier referenced bubbles, and my suggestion is compatible with the "bubble" concept to the degree that each new arena would represent a new expanding bubble; arena and bubble could be used interchangeably.

Does anyone object to including that hypothetical reasoning as part of the model? Does anyone like that idea? Are there any comments you would like to make that would add to the waning discussion?

reply to post by BogieSmiles


What would have caused the other big bangs? So instead of one universe consisting of atoms/galaxies, a single system that was born at once. you propose multiple systems contained in one supreme arena that we can call ultimate reality. that ultimate reality of all big bangs exist even though we cant perceive it in our universal reality. So say there are 50 other big bangs, say there are 50 billion other big bangs. Why would there be a specific quantity, and how did they get there? how did they all just poof into existence, how was all the energy contained in each one separate by such vast quantities? you think its far in space and time from here to your nearest deli, or your nearest town, or your nearest state, or the nearest country, or the nearest planet, or the nearest star, or the nearest galaxy, or the next nearest galaxy, or the furthest galaxy... it must be really far in time and space to the next universe from here, and the next one over, and so on. So im wondering if there is some cause and effect, chronological time and activity in which our universe was a result, or is it possible for big bangs to be going on, and ours 14 billion years ago, poofed in the middle of 50 or 50 billion other big bangs.

reply to post by ImaFungi

You ask an interesting question in an interesting way. My answer comes out of my so-called model and is a personal view of the mechanics of the universe at the arena level. The mechanics are referred to as "arena action".

Arena Action

Our big bang arena is the result of the interaction between two or more arenas like ours that formed before ours, perhaps hypothetically about 500 billion years years before, depending on some variables. Each arena is characterized by expansion, and that expansion equates to the separation momentum of the galaxies and galaxy groups that formed within them. Separation momentum is the conservation of the momentum imparted to particles that form from the dense state energy of the each infant arena during the period of "inflation", so the galaxies in each of the parent arenas were all moving away from each other when their growing Hubble volume of space caused them to intersect and overlap.

Infant arenas are dense dark energy that emerges from a big crunch.

The emergence of the new arena is preceded by the bang. The big bang is the collapse of the big crunch and is caused when the inflowing galactic matter from the parent arenas accumulates under the influence of gravity until the crunch reaches "critical capacity".

At critical capacity the particles of matter that make up the crunch collapse, giving up all of their internal particle space, causing the big bang. It is a collapse of matter into the dense state of wave energy, so at the instant of the bang the contents of the arena has collapsed into high density wave energy, the "dark energy" that Bleeeeep wondered if I had thought of including in my model. It is there, and in the infant arena it is all that is there. At the instant of emergence the dark energy is expanding as it goes through the natural process of energy density equalization (conventionally called inflation) with the surrounding low energy density left in the space that the crunch formerly occupied. I would characterize it as a collapse/bang.

Now let's step back and put the process of arena action into the perspective of the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe. There is only one universe, so a big bang is not a universe, it is a finite event within the infinite landscape of the greater universe.

Big bangs are separated by a distance in space that can be described by going back to the example of parent arenas. Let's hypothesize that there were two parent arenas, though multiple parent arenas is certainly possible in my model. The two parent arenas might be of different ages and at different stages of galactic maturity. Those parent arenas would be unremarkable, given that they have the same life cycle as every other arena in the arena landscape. They formed when their parent arenas overlapped and shared galactic matter in a swirling rendezvous that occurs at the center of gravity in the overlap space.

One thing we can say is that the parent arenas formed a  long ways away from each other, which is simple mechanics. Since we are saying that the parent arenas are mature and are hosting a full complement of galaxies, then we are saying that they had been in the process of expansion for billions and billions of years, so they formed a long long time ago. We also are saying that the rate of separation of the galaxies and galaxy groups within each arena was similar and that it featured some ongoing acceleration over time like we are beginning to observe in our own arena.

With that perspective, the two parent arenas were part of the arena landscape, and that landscape featured them and an infinite number of similar arenas across the infinite space of the universe. Each arena expands until that expansion is interrupted by converging with another mature arena, and the result of that convergence (interaction) is the crunch/collapse/bang of a newly emerging arena composed of a portion of the galactic material from each parent.

reply to post by BogieSmiles


Ok ok. So if we could look at the total existence of all things, all universes, all parent arenas, everything that actually exists right now. Would it be the same "amount" of energy that has, always existed?

That would make many big bang arenas and universes interesting compared to if just our galactic universe existed, because what would explain where reality got 'all that energy from', and how did arenas get so separate. And is there an ultimate fundamental reality supporting all the universes? the same kind of space they all share, the same way energy exists or can be used, or reacts with it self.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by BogieSmiles

 

Ok ok. So if we could look at the total existence of all things, all universes, all parent arenas, everything that actually exists right now. Would it be the same "amount" of energy that has, always existed?

Yes, however, my so called model hypothesizes that there is just one universe. The parent arenas, and the new infant arenas, in fact the whole arena family across the infinite landscape of the greater universe is part of that one universe.

That would make many big bang arenas and universes interesting compared to if just our galactic universe existed, because what would explain where reality got 'all that energy from', and how did arenas get so separate. And is there an ultimate fundamental reality supporting all the universes? the same kind of space they all share, the same way energy exists or can be used, or reacts with it self.

Yes, according to my view. The arena process perpetuates a universal sameness among all of the arenas; the same "birth" from the galactic material of their parents, the same maturation process as they fill themselves with galaxies, the same fate of expanding until that expansion is interrupted by intersecting with other arenas, and the same outcome characterized by the gravitational compression of galactic material contributed by the parents that results in new big bangs. The arena process defeats entropy to assure the perpetuation of new arenas that host hospitable environments where life is generated and evolves to conscious intelligent beings, like you.

I'm back, lol.

Its been almost two years. My views on cosmology have evolved some, but essentially everything in this thread still is appropriate. This YouTube video I made is a Vidra "explainer video", which focuses on the macro realm of my model, The Infinite Spongy Universe.

youtu.be...

I hope someone watches it and will comment on some of the content. Each slide is covered in the narrative, and when I viewed it myself, I found that the "pause" button helped, because it is 20 minutes long, and some interruptions invariably come up every five minutes around here; how did all of those people get my phone number?

Chalk me up for no. 3, the universe has always existed and is infinite (goes on forever) in all 6 directions. Wether it is infinite or finite, both appear equally magical to me.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
reply to post by BogieSmiles

 

So say there are 50 other big bangs, say there are 50 billion other big bangs. Why would there be a specific quantity, and how did they get there?

That is something which can never be truly counted because there is an uncountable number of new big bangs happening (although I believe it to be more like a big melt with expansion) all the time and once one begins with counting, one would be counting forever trying to keep up with all the new formed bigbangs. And even if it was possible to count, one would need all the computers of the world to print the number and even then we need an uncountable number of Earths to keep up with the notation of numbers.

I'm wondering whether this has anything to do with Creationism? Maybe a better forum would be Science and Technology?

originally posted by: Phantom423
I'm wondering whether this has anything to do with Creationism? Maybe a better forum would be Science and Technology?

I know what you mean. When I started the thread a couple of years ago, the forum was called Origins and Creationism.
I thought of it in terms of the three main explanations for the existence of the universe. Of course the "God did it" choice would be the Creationist option. My YouTube video is based on the premise that the universe has "Always existed". And then there is the always popular choice, "Something from nothing".

I'm OK if the thread should be moved to Science, but it is alternative theory as opposed to something scientific.

a reply to: BogieSmiles

I'm not a Mod so it's not up to me. I didn't realize that "Origins" was also included.

It's an interesting topic. Quantum theory proposes many universes. Our perception and observation of reality is limited by instrumentation. If the microscope wasn't developed, we would never see lower forms of life. If advanced mathematics and physics was continually developed, we wouldn't have models for anything.

So it's really a function of how well and how fast we can develop the tools to answer these questions.

a reply to: Phantom423

If you have some time, watch my YouTube video. I do address the topic of the QM view of Many Worlds, and other possibilities, and try to appeal to logic. You know, there are many, especially those who advocate the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, that say we can't expect the universe to seem logical; after all we are merely a random product of it. But still, there is something about giving up all common sense in place of "it isn't supposed to make sense", that motivates me to hypothesizes about alternatives.

Creationists don't labor over it, they accept the gospel, while scientists and the scientific method don't recognize the Supernatural. I'm a layman science enthusiast, but my model leaves open the possibility that God and the universe might be one and the same.

originally posted by: BogieSmiles
a reply to: Phantom423

If you have some time, watch my YouTube video. I do address the topic of the QM view of Many Worlds, and other possibilities, and try to appeal to logic. You know, there are many, especially those who advocate the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, that say we can't expect the universe to seem logical; after all we are merely a random product of it. But still, there is something about giving up all common sense in place of "it isn't supposed to make sense", that motivates me to hypothesizes about alternatives.

Creationists don't labor over it, they accept the gospel, while scientists and the scientific method don't recognize the Supernatural. I'm a layman science enthusiast, but my model leaves open the possibility that God and the universe might be one and the same.

Yes, I agree with you - the Copenhagen interpretation has been challenged by several QM physicists. I would take exception to the idea that because everything is "random", that we can't find logic. Many things aren't obvious in QM, but that doesn't mean there's no logic - we just haven't uncovered enough information about the systems to understand the logic. So asking questions and hypothesizing in a very good thing - after all, our brains are the thing that elucidates these mysteries.

I will look at your video later today. Thanks for posting it.

originally posted by: johnnyjoe1979
Chalk me up for no. 3, the universe has always existed and is infinite (goes on forever) in all 6 directions. Wether it is infinite or finite, both appear equally magical to me.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
reply to post by BogieSmiles

 

So say there are 50 other big bangs, say there are 50 billion other big bangs. Why would there be a specific quantity, and how did they get there?

That is something which can never be truly counted because there is an uncountable number of new big bangs happening (although I believe it to be more like a big melt with expansion) all the time and once one begins with counting, one would be counting forever trying to keep up with all the new formed bigbangs. And even if it was possible to count, one would need all the computers of the world to print the number and even then we need an uncountable number of Earths to keep up with the notation of numbers.

Good, you are a #3 too. What you describe about trying to put a number on the infinite number of big bangs is exactly how I see it. An infinite number can't be quantified, and that is hard for many to grasp.

I watched the video and wrote a lengthy answer about it. Unfortunately, I lost the whole thing when I tried to include a screenshot

I have to write it up again and post later. I wanted to go over the finite/infinite, energy and entropy aspects contained in the video.

BTW, who is the author of the video? I was going to post in the comment section asking a few questions - but wasn't sure if the person who uploaded the video was the author.

If someone can point me to a link which describes how to upload a jpg, I would appreciate it. I clicked on the link above the thread - and that's when I lost everything. Thanks.

originally posted by: Phantom423
I watched the video and wrote a lengthy answer about it. Unfortunately, I lost the whole thing when I tried to include a screenshot

I have to write it up again and post later. I wanted to go over the finite/infinite, energy and entropy aspects contained in the video.

BTW, who is the author of the video? I was going to post in the comment section asking a few questions - but wasn't sure if the person who uploaded the video was the author.

Yours truly is the author, and narrator. I used Grafio to make the images, and Vidra, an iPad app, to do the video. It would be great if you would post comments on the YouTube though, because others may have the same questions as you. If you liked it, give me a .

originally posted by: BogieSmiles

originally posted by: Phantom423
I watched the video and wrote a lengthy answer about it. Unfortunately, I lost the whole thing when I tried to include a screenshot

I have to write it up again and post later. I wanted to go over the finite/infinite, energy and entropy aspects contained in the video.

BTW, who is the author of the video? I was going to post in the comment section asking a few questions - but wasn't sure if the person who uploaded the video was the author.

Yours truly is the author, and narrator. I used Grafio to make the images, and Vidra, an iPad app, to do the video. It would be great if you would post comments on the YouTube though, because others may have the same questions as you. If you liked it, give me a

.

Very nice!! I will give you a Working on rewriting my response this morning. Will post in a little while.

I’m not a cosmologist – my field is chemistry/physics, specifically spectroscopy, so I would like to understand your model a little better then pose some questions. I read your posts on the SciForum which really gave me a better insight into the model. YouTube is great, but to understand something in depth, the written word is still the best!

My understanding of your model is:

1. That the universe is actually one entity, comprised of multiple “arenas”.
2. The universe that we perceive is actually one of these arenas.
3. The arenas interface with each other as a consequence of the natural laws of classical physics and quantum mechanics (as we understand it now).
4. Each arena experiences its own “big bang” resulting in a unique arena.
5. Over time and given the natural laws of physics, these arenas collide, condensing their matter at the overlap.
6. As they form this new condensation area, energy is preserved, entropy is decreased and eventually, a new arena is formed. In other words, entropy goes through a redundant, recycling process which would allow for energy condensation, expansion, dissipation and then restructuring.
7. This process occurs randomly throughout the larger universe which engulfs these arenas. The larger universe is infinite and its timeline has no beginning and no end.

Let me know if I have it essentially right. If my understanding is fairly correct, then I have some questions, particularly regarding entropy and energy “leak”. Any corrections to my understanding would be welcomed. Thanks.

BTW, I do think you should post your video in Science and Technology too because there's a lot of nerds over there who will take an interest and respond perhaps with different takes on your model. Just a thought....