The Infinite Spongy Universe Cosmology, 2014

Let me squeeze this brief discussion into the 2014 thread:

Posts #51-#78 starting with,

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/wa...-accompanying-wave.143549/page-3#post-3258722

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The matter of dark energy as explained by my model was brought up in P&M, and later moved to Alternative Theories. That discussion earns a place in this thread, with the following post being a good starting point:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/wh...ematic-issues-in-science.141543/#post-3190838

And from there another wild and crazy thread emerged, lol.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There are two things yet to add to the 2014 updates thread so I will have them on the list when I do the 2015 update:
One is the thread: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...ard-model-may-account-for-dark-matter.143780/
Theorists suggest the standard model may account for dark matter,
and the other is the discussion with Paddoboy in his thread:
Dark Energy and Time Dilation, starting with this post:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/dark-energy-and-time-dilation.143781/page-4#post-3260671, posts #62-#82.

Those threads and discussions will be the basis for my 2014 update on dark energy in the ISU to be inserted here before I begin the 2015 ISU update.
(1807)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

When I discuss my hobby-model of the universe, I start by differentiating between the three major explanations for the existence of the universe. I ask people to pick one, and I compare their choice to mine. My model is based on the explanation that the universe has always existed. I simply feel that there is no proof, nor any way to falsify either of the explanations, and I choose "Always Existed" because it fits best with my life long experiences, learning, and contemplations. Feel free to say which explanation you choose, and why.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Given that my choice of explanations for the existence of the universe is that it has always existed, which sets the time dynamic as eternal, the concept of finite vs. infinite space is the next step along the path. I invoke infinite space to go with infinite time, because I cannot find the logic to establish a finite amount of space, or a bounded universe. To me, the universe is unbounded and eternal.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Given boundless infinite space, the greater universe is an open system. Any finite region that is not bounded in some way, i.e. where matter and energy can enter and leave, is an open system as well.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Given an infinite universe, and a finite Big Bang arena, our arena is an expanding open system within the landscape of the greater universe.

 

#30 1/16/2015
I'm putting a link to this post so that I will have if when I do the 2015 update thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/photon.143776/page-19#post-3264948
These are from a thread in P&M (for now) that contains several pertinent discussions about the grifio images above, etc., which I include in this ISU 2014 thread as the reference for the 2015 update.

This one in post #271 is the Parent Spheres concept
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/photon.143776/page-14#post-3263469
The idea is that if two parent arenas converge, the galactic material in the overlap space will swirl into a growing crunch, which might be the same precondition of all big bangs :shrug:

and this one in post #278 is the Formation of the crunch/bang concept
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/photon.143776/page-14#post-3263492
Sequence from intersect/overlap to collapse/bang

As a layman, and in regard to a lot of layman level research in the last couple of days, from the papers I am reading, there are several avenues under study, but the issues of wide angle (hemispherical) asymmetry still seems to concern some professionals. Look at all the papers since 2013 that address the WMAP/Planck data. Those corrections to remove the wide angle anisotropies often skew the small angle date beyond recognition.

Of course there is the peculiar velocity, and how to accurately quantify it relative to the rest frame of the CMB, distant galaxies, relative redshift, Hubble's constant, etc. Then there is the masking used to mask out things like the plane of the Milky Way and large sturcture, dust, etc. Also there is the issue of the small angle anisotropy that is disproportionately affected by the sharp edges of the masking, which when smoothed can eliminate some of the anomalies at the larger angles. When all of these things are quantified, after a series of "if this, then that", the dipole asymmetry and cold spot can be explained away with, they say, 95% confidence.

I'm still working on getting and keeping up with the latest consensus, but my guess is that there is more data that has to be analyzed, and future sky surveys that might bring new data, so I will keep looking over time. There is the old saying, "What you see is what you get", but we must keep asking ourselves how we define "seeing".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here are the two gifs mentioned at the start of this post as well:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!