What is Quantum Wave Cosmology discussion thread

[Pincho Paxton]

Infinite division allows for infinite building cells, and infinite building cells allows for infinitely small acceleration stages. Large acceleration stages using infinitely small cells requires that the cells can hold together as their acceleration steps are updated. Take two cells side by side, they need to maintain a reasonable distance apart to hold their partner in place. So they therefore require speeds, and forces multiple times their own scale. The Aether is the holding force, and the Atom acts as its held partner. The Photon wave could be described as the dividing line between the two. For the wave to hold its shape at high speed, it needs the dividing line to have substance, or forces apart from the Aether. I call that the Aether membrane, or bubble membrane. We would now have...

Aether
Aether Membrane
Atom
Photon
Electron

These things all working as a unit. If we accept such a situation, and realise that C is therefore a limit of the Aether Membrane size. We now have C not as a constant speed, but rather as a minimum size limit. A membrane is a skin around a substance, and a skin around a substance has to have a thickness, and the substance has to have a radius. When a membrane touches its own radius it becomes the substance. Further reduction is impossible.

Time requires infinite energy to store each event. It requires parallel Universe. Basically it is a sci-fi concept. It has been egged on by some faulty experiments where Aether was not accepted as substance, and therefore time had to exist. Two planes flying in opposite directions do not travel through exactly the same amount of Aether, and Aether is the update interval for electrons, and a force wall for atoms. two planes flying in opposite directions find an Aether effect, not time.

Infinite Energy.. We live in substance, and substance shares substance. If we could go somewhere where nothing has to be shared with anything else energy would be more positive than shared.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Ready made reply?
Okay try this: what on Earth makes you think that ANY distance (let alone an infinite one) isn't capable of being "infinitely divided"?
What on Earth makes you think that infinite distance is a "cross reference really to scale factors"?

You make statements that barely (if at all) hold up as English, let alone as factual comments.

Likewise what evidence do you have for even supposing that for the universe to begin requires perpetual motion?

1/ Infinite division is a manufactured power of mathematics not nature.
2/ perpetual motion is the definition of the Universe beginning from nothing. if you state that the Universe began as the Universe is now then you state that the Universe is a Pot Noodle, which is nice and simple for you to understand, but that is just a convenient way not to have to think about it.

 

[Dywyddyr]

1/ Infinite division is a manufactured power of mathematics not nature.

In which case nothing is divisible and you're being specious on the subject of infinite distance.

2/ perpetual motion is the definition of the Universe beginning from nothing.

No it isn't.
"Perpetual motion" by definition means "moving forever". The very slight clue to that is in the words "perpetual" and "motion". If at any point there was nothing then couldn't have been any motion.

if you state that the Universe began as the Universe is now then you state that the Universe is a Pot Noodle, which is nice and simple for you to understand, but that is just a convenient way not to have to think about it.

And so you revert to meaningless drivel once more.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

In which case nothing is divisible and you're being specious on the subject of infinite distance.


No it isn't.
"Perpetual motion" by definition means "moving forever". The very slight clue to that is in the words "perpetual" and "motion". If at any point there was nothing then couldn't have been any motion.


And so you revert to meaningless drivel once more.

Division in cells is the none mathematical version. How many cells is an entity built from.

Perpetual motion has an alternate meaning....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

 

[quantum_wave]

Infinite division allows for infinite building cells, and infinite building cells allows for infinitely small acceleration stages. Large acceleration stages using infinitely small cells requires that the cells can hold together as their acceleration steps are updated. Take two cells side by side, they need to maintain a reasonable distance apart to hold their partner in place. So they therefore require speeds, and forces multiple times their own scale. The Aether is the holding force, and the Atom acts as its held partner. The Photon wave could be described as the dividing line between the two. For the wave to hold its shape at high speed, it needs the dividing line to have substance, or forces apart from the Aether. I call that the Aether membrane, or bubble membrane. We would now have...

Aether
Aether Membrane
Atom
Photon
Electron

These things all working as a unit. If we accept such a situation, and realise that C is therefore a limit of the Aether Membrane size. We now have C not as a constant speed, but rather as a minimum size limit. A membrane is a skin around a substance, and a skin around a substance has to have a thickness, and the substance has to have a radius. When a membrane touches its own radius it becomes the substance. Further reduction is impossible.

Time requires infinite energy to store each event. It requires parallel Universe. Basically it is a sci-fi concept. It has been egged on by some faulty experiments where Aether was not accepted as substance, and therefore time had to exist. Two planes flying in opposite directions do not travel through exactly the same amount of Aether, and Aether is the update interval for electrons, and a force wall for atoms. two planes flying in opposite directions find an Aether effect, not time.

Infinite Energy.. We live in substance, and substance shares substance. If we could go somewhere where nothing has to be shared with anything else energy would be more positive than shared.

Ouch Pincho. You have to know your audience. This advanced stuff of yours leaves no room for discussion. We have no clue what you mean. Even I use points of departure from the scientific consensus to start my QWC discussions. Try that. Mention some commonly understood science and expand on it step by step to explain your "cell" idea.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Ouch Pincho. You have to know your audience. This advanced stuff of yours leaves no room for discussion. We have no clue what you mean. Even I use points of departure from the scientific consensus to start my QWC discussions. Try that. Mention some commonly understood science and expand on it step by step to explain your "cell" idea.

It's bubble Universe theory really, but taken from the smallest bubbles upwards. Say for example we have the 2D version simplified..

360 locked bubbles (size 2) create a ring, around a bunch of smaller bubbles (size 1). 360 larger bubbles (size 3) surround the size 2 bubbles, but this compresses the size 2 bubbles, giving them more of a single membrane rather than a 360 separate bubble membrane. This keeps happening upwards, and the stresses of the membrane upscale with the size.

 

[quantum_wave]

It's bubble Universe theory really, but taken from the smallest bubbles upwards. Say for example we have the 2D version simplified..

360 locked bubbles (size 2) create a ring, around a bunch of smaller bubbles (size 1). 360 larger bubbles (size 3) surround the size 2 bubbles, but this compresses the size 2 bubbles, giving them more of a single membrane rather than a 360 separate bubble membrane. This keeps happening upwards, and the stresses of the membrane upscale with the size.

First, about the departure point. You are using bubble Universe theory as your departure point? Won't work to give us a clue about what you are talking about because it is not an accepted consensus. You have to start with something both you and I understand and then tell me how your idea goes further, step by step. There has to be a methodology in speculation that can always lead back to accepted science. That way someone can point out exactly where they first disagree with your ideas.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

First, about the departure point. You are using bubble Universe theory as your departure point? Won't work to give us a clue about what you are talking about because it is not an accepted consensus. You have to start with something both you and I understand and then tell me how your idea goes further, step by step. There has to be a methodology in speculation that can always lead back to accepted science. That way someone can point out exactly where they first disagree with your ideas.

Lol.. I don't think that any of my theory uses any accepted scientific consensus, it is a theory that tries to append Quantum Physics to Physics without disagreeing with all of the knows like G, C etc. So it is more like a working model of everything made from as few entities as possible. Mostly bubbles. Not quite the same as fairies as it is the minimal requirement, and minimises science removing time, Dark Matter, wave particle theory, and lots of other things. Just to show that bubbles can remove the need for nearly everything.

 

[quantum_wave]

Lol.. I don't think that any of my theory uses any accepted scientific consensus, it is a theory that tries to append Quantum Physics to Physics without disagreeing with all of the knows like G, C etc. So it is more like a working model of everything made from as few entities as possible. Mostly bubbles. Not quite the same as fairies as it is the minimal requirement, and minimises science removing time, Dark Matter, wave particle theory, and lots of other things. Just to show that bubbles can remove the need for nearly everything.

Well that is a starting point. Just like QWC except that I start out with speculation about what caused the Big Bang. And instead of little bubbles I use energy quantization. The quantum particles occur during a process of quantization that I call quantum action but the process only produces a phase during which the presence of mass is established. It is a passing phase but the process repeats itself as the waves that emerge form the high density spot (particle) phase expand and overlap to initiate subsequent action. Each quantum of energy goes through the phases and so matter is composed of energy in quantum increments. Like your many little bubbles, a fundamental particle with mass might be composed of a huge number of energy quanta.

The Big Bang part comes into play after a big crunch forms and it is the energy density achieved by the crunch that halts quantum action. Quantum action is necessary for gravity waves to be emitted from mass and so when the energy density reaches the maximum threshold within a big crunch, gravity ceases and is converted to potential expansion energy. The dense state energy of that phase of a big crunch builds up until it exceeds the compression of the crunch. The dense state energy with its expansion potential becomes dark energy as it emerges from the big bang. Simple huh?

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Well that is a starting point. Just like QWC except that I start out with speculation about what caused the Big Bang. And instead of little bubbles I use energy quantization. The quantum particles occur during a process of quantization that I call quantum action but the process only produces a phase during which the presence of mass is established. It is a passing phase but the process repeats itself as the waves that emerge form the high density spot (particle) phase expand and overlap to initiate subsequent action. Each quantum of energy goes through the phases and so matter is composed of energy in quantum increments. Like your many little bubbles, a fundamental particle with mass might be composed of a huge number of energy quanta.

The Big Bang part comes into play after a big crunch forms and it is the energy density achieved by the crunch that halts quantum action. Quantum action is necessary for gravity waves to be emitted from mass and so when the energy density reaches the maximum threshold within a big crunch, gravity ceases and is converted to potential expansion energy. The dense state energy of that phase of a big crunch builds up until it exceeds the compression of the crunch. The dense state energy with its expansion potential becomes dark energy as it emerges from the big bang. Simple huh?

To minimise the physics however I also had to minimise the Big Bang to basically the creation of the Universe from perpetual motion (energy from zero). I removed the zero from the maths completely, and replaced it with what happens if a state is both -1 and +1 at the same time. Which would be left / right spins, or two opposing forces. By removing zero you get a Universe from what is left. This helped me to solve many problems with quantum physics. By just saying that zero cannot exist to create a Universe you also get many none zero states in quantum physics. I also then removed infinity from scale, and depth because of the amount of energy that this would require, and by removing infinity I had to also remove time, because time is infinite in many ways, and parallel universe are also infinite. What I was left with was tension breaks. Tension breaks occur when something cannot hold together any longer due to normal physical tension v's force, and holding. It's very simple in physics to test for tension break occurrence, but mathematics has hidden this tension force for many years. It is time to accept tension breaks in things like Black Holes. I can guarantee that wherever there is a nonsensical zero, or infinity in maths that there will be a unforeseen result. I like to find these zeros, and infinities to unlock their hidden results. They produce some amazing things. Like Black Holes bursting into Galaxies, and pressures crushing materials into vague materials that have ghost like properties. But because I change so much of science, and because science is so slow to accept a single change let alone the entire structure of itself to change, my science of nature will not be known until I am a hidden speck in the internet history. But I do believe that Einstein himself knew a lot of this, but was old, and silenced by majority vote. The theory of relativity used to be called 'The Aether and the theory of relativity' but majority vote ruled out the Aether. Einstein himself couldn't explain his meaning to scientists, so the Aether is the missing link to what could be, but what might not be in our lifetimes.

 

[quantum_wave]

Let me ask you this Pincho. Why don't you just go with standard cosmology, BBT, Inflation, the Cosmological Principle, all that? What is there about your ideas that seems to work better for you?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Division in cells is the none mathematical version. How many cells is an entity built from.

And you somehow think that one is simply a sort of mathematical trick and the other is "more real"?

Perpetual motion has an alternate meaning....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

Er, quite:

The term perpetual motion, taken literally, refers to movement that goes on forever.

If, however, you're referring to the incorrect interpretation:

commonly refers to any device or system that perpetually (indefinitely) produces more energy than it consumes,

I ask again:
What evidence do you have for even supposing that for the universe to begin requires perpetual motion?

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Let me ask you this Pincho. Why don't you just go with standard cosmology, BBT, Inflation, the Cosmological Principle, all that? What is there about your ideas that seems to work better for you?

The original scientific theory fell apart a long time ago, but bodges have been introduced to keep it going for many years. Also the Big Bang is a paradox like God is a paradox. Who created God? What created the singularity? And time is also a Paradox, and Particle wave is another Paradox.

Too many Paradox spoil the theory. I stripped it apart, and started from scratch.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

And you somehow think that one is simply a sort of mathematical trick and the other is "more real"?


Er, quite:

If, however, you're referring to the incorrect interpretation:

I ask again:
What evidence do you have for even supposing that for the universe to begin requires perpetual motion?

Yes, cell divisions are not infinite. Maths misses out the physics. The infinite Black Hole for example has no physics. You can keep cramming more, and, more material in there forever. The whole Universe can fit in a Black Hole. It works with maths because you don't know the tension breakage. You need a tension estimation based on some sort of logic. The logic can possibly come from the smallest possible particle. When the crushing weight creates almost zero particle scale something will break.

The Universe needs to start from perpetual motion to remove the Paradox. What happened before the Big Bang, and what is the singularity? If you start with perpetual motion you step back in scale, rather than time. Now you have to go back to maybe a single electron. What happened before the single electron? is the same as asking "What happened before 1?" That is not such a paradox as we have maths that can cope with what happens before 1. It is a sensible solution to the Paradox.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Yes, cell divisions are not infinite.

And so...?

Maths misses out the physics.

The infinite Black Hole for example has no physics.

Er, wrong.

It works with maths because you don't know the tension breakage. You need a tension estimation based on some sort of logic.

WTF is a "tension breakage" and why do you need one?

The logic can possibly come from the smallest possible particle. When the crushing weight creates almost zero particle scale something will break.

Er... quite. Are you still taking the tablets?

The Universe needs to start from perpetual motion to remove the Paradox.

No it doesn't. What "paradox"?

What happened before the Big Bang, and what is the singularity? If you start with perpetual motion you step back in scale, rather than time. Now you have to go back to maybe a single electron. What happened before the single electron? is the same as asking "What happened before 1?" That is not such a paradox as we have maths that can cope with what happens before 1. It is a sensible solution to the Paradox.

And now you're simply talking out of your arse.

 

[quantum_wave]

The original scientific theory fell apart a long time ago, but bodges have been introduced to keep it going for many years. Also the Big Bang is a paradox like God is a paradox. Who created God? What created the singularity? And time is also a Paradox, and Particle wave is another Paradox.

Too many Paradox spoil the theory. I stripped it apart, and started from scratch.

Yikes, we sort of agree except that I'm not sure we use the word "paradox" in the same way. And what are bodges? Give me an example. But what we agree on is that science does not yet have all the answers.

I basically ask people three questions in QWC:

What caused the initial expansion of our observable universe?
What causes the presence of mass?
What causes gravity?

Then in QWC I proceed to speculate about the answers. The questions each represent a departure point from where we have been able to go scientifically and the speculative answers are an attempt to get people who are interested in cosmology to discuss the possibilities.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Ouch Pincho. You have to know your audience. This advanced stuff of yours leaves no room for discussion. We have no clue what you mean. Even I use points of departure from the scientific consensus to start my QWC discussions. Try that. Mention some commonly understood science and expand on it step by step to explain your "cell" idea.

PP is even more of an ignorant hack than you are. He is just a buzzword shitting machine, nothing more. You try to superficially look like you're doing something which might be worth someone looking at, PP just spouts nonsense in an attempt to deliberately seem obscure and thus somehow educated or informed about physics. He is nothing of the sort and the fact you haven't seen through that in his posts, both in this thread and others, illustrates just how little you know yourself.

PP talks about 360 bubbles around a larger bubble. Why? Because he thinks that the 360 degrees in a circle are something physically meaningful and not just a choice of ours. There's 400 grads in a circle. Or 2pi radians. Or 358328582 AlphaNumerics. And you failed to spot something as stupid and meaningless as that in his posts.

Or perhaps you didn't and you think that if he's willing try to and BS you you can BS him and you end up spouting nonsense at one another, supporting one anothers delusions.

 

[quantum_wave]

Unfortunately I have an idea of what Pincho's statement about the universe having to start with perpetual motion might mean. But my excuse is that in my view of cosmology the universe demonstrates perpetual motion in a way that defeats entropy, i.e. QWC.

Pincho, would your perpetual motion concept of the universe be satisfied if the universe had always existed with big bangs and expanding arenas like our observable universe occurring here and there across the landscape of a greater potentially infinite universe?

 

[quantum_wave]

PP is even more of an ignorant hack than you are. He is just a buzzword shitting machine, nothing more. You try to superficially look like you're doing something which might be worth someone looking at, PP just spouts nonsense in an attempt to deliberately seem obscure and thus somehow educated or informed about physics. He is nothing of the sort and the fact you haven't seen through that in his posts, both in this thread and others, illustrates just how little you know yourself.

PP talks about 360 bubbles around a larger bubble. Why? Because he thinks that the 360 degrees in a circle are something physically meaningful and not just a choice of ours. There's 400 grads in a circle. Or 2pi radians. Or 358328582 AlphaNumerics. And you failed to spot something as stupid and meaningless as that in his posts.

Or perhaps you didn't and you think that if he's willing try to and BS you you can BS him and you end up spouting nonsense at one another, supporting one anothers delusions.

link and document.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

PP is even more of an ignorant hack than you are. He is just a buzzword shitting machine, nothing more. You try to superficially look like you're doing something which might be worth someone looking at, PP just spouts nonsense in an attempt to deliberately seem obscure and thus somehow educated or informed about physics. He is nothing of the sort and the fact you haven't seen through that in his posts, both in this thread and others, illustrates just how little you know yourself.

PP talks about 360 bubbles around a larger bubble. Why? Because he thinks that the 360 degrees in a circle are something physically meaningful and not just a choice of ours. There's 400 grads in a circle. Or 2pi radians. Or 358328582 AlphaNumerics. And you failed to spot something as stupid and meaningless as that in his posts.

Or perhaps you didn't and you think that if he's willing try to and BS you you can BS him and you end up spouting nonsense at one another, supporting one anothers delusions.

I said that my example was the simplified version, and it used 360 to make the explanation easy to visualise. The real value is the smallest value of Aether, which can probably be calculated, but so far the only calculation I can fully guarantee is the smallest membrane size.