Where are the discussions about current problematic issues in science?

My description goes on to say, "without the implied 'something from nothing' beginning of General Relativity (GR)".

1) My speculation is that there are three explanations for the existence of the universe, a. God did it, b. Something from nothing, and c. The universe has always existed.
2) My interpretation of the various explanations of General Relativity, Big Bang Theory, Inflation, etc. is that there is no explanation specifically given for the existence of the universe.
3) Those same descriptions mention a singularity where the mathematics of spacetime break down at the Planck regime, meaning to me that the theory backtracks to a point of space.
4) I interpret that to mean that in GR, the universe started as an infinitely dense, zero volume point of space.
5) To me that equates to a "Something from nothing" explanation for the existence of the universe.
6) My experience, education, self learning, upbringing, personal preferences, attitudes, inclinations, skepticism and simple layman status mean I just can't accept something from nothing. I'll leave that option to the professionals.
 
My description goes on to say, "without the implied 'something from nothing' beginning of General Relativity (GR)".

1) My speculation is that there are three explanations for the existence of the universe, a. God did it, b. Something from nothing, and c. The universe has always existed.
hee hee there is one thing for pretty certain and that is that the universe did and done it.
Now, what exactly is the universe is the real question? IMO. :)
... and that's what science is all about yes?
 
Last edited:
hee hee there is one thing for pretty certain and that is that the universe did and done it.
Now, what exactly is the universe is the real question? IMO. :)
... and that's what science is all about yes?
Yes, science is "all about" what we can determine using the scientific method. My hobby-model is what the universe is all about to me, using science as the departure point, and answering my unwanswered questions by applying my methodology of step by step, reasonable and responsible, bottom up speculation, yes?

Which is perfectly in keeping with the next part of my description, the as yet unexplained mechanics that I speculate are taking place on the smallest meaningful scale, at the foundational level, where the process of Quantum Action establishes the presence of particles and motion.

I have to take my speculations down to this hypothetical foundational level for good reasons, related to the hobby-model's claim that it is internally consistent. But why?

Because I've speculated an infinite and eternal universe where the medium of space carries gravitational wave energy at all points in all directions in varying levels of energy density, and the foundational level is where the quantum action is taking place.

And because in my model there are mechanics that govern the functioning of particles and gravity, there are mechanics that explain the defeat of entropy, there are mechanics that underpin the formation and collapse of a big crunch, and there are mechanics that describe the formation of individual particles from the original mass that fills the big bang arenas at the moment of their emergence from their initial collapse/bang event.

Putting that all into steps of speculation, we get QWC:

1) I speculate that the mechanics of gravity can be described by wave action taking place on a scale too small to detect.
2) I speculate the the presence of particles is supported by quantum action taking place on the same unobservable scale.
3) I speculate that the Arena Action on the grand scales depends on Quantum Action on that unobservable scale.
4) I speculate that the mechanics of arena action are wave mechanics, just as are the mechanics of quantum action.
5) I speculate that particles are composed of wave energy
6) I speculate that the change in energy of a particle takes place in quantum increments.

7-100) I go to lengths in the hobby-model to hypothesize about those mechanics in a way that makes it all work together. The mechanics of the presence of particles charged and dark, works with the mechanics of gravity, which works with the large scale motion of objects, which plays a constructive role in the expansion momentum of galaxies and galactic structure, reaching a point of observable acceleration in the rate of expansion attributed to dark energy, which leads to parent arena's expanding into each other, resulting in big crunches forming at the center of gravity, which invokes quantum action mechanics to cause the collapse/bang from which the hot ball of dense state wave energy emerges to provide the mass for a new arena, and that arena immediately begins its expansion, which hosts the formation of galaxies and galactic structure, the earmarks of a maturing big bang arena in the landscape of the greater universe.
 
Last edited:
The description then says it is a Hidden Variables Interpretation (HVI) of Quantum Mechanics (QM).

1) Specifically, the defeat of entropy is hidden in the interplay of forces on a grand scale, too large for us to observe, and that interplay is dependent on the hidden action at the unseen, perhaps undetectable foundational level, where the weirdness of QM is solved, hypothetically, by continuous wave mechanics in the aether medium of space, according to my model.

2) QM doesn't try to explain the weirdness of faster than light communication, entanglement, superposition, or decoherence. It just says that is how the universe appears to work, and employs them as tools subject to randomness and probability. In QM, the wave function, and mathematical operators, renormalization, and generalizations to make them apply to large systems have proven effective tools to predict experimental outcomes. It is all very mathematical, and not at all intuitive, which is OK with a lot of people, but not considered the final answer by some.

3) You can accept the weirdness of non-locality and faster than light communication at the fundamental level as the true reality of the universe, featuring entangled particles with super-positioned states, FTL communication between particles, and the Standard Particle Model, or you can invoke The ISU, and its mechanics of Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC), and particles composed of complex wave energy patterns, that orchestrate and govern local reality at a foundational level. I am happy to be able to present that as an alternative to laymen science enthusiasts while we wait for the final answers, if there are any.
 
Alchemy was once a "fringe" science. Only the likes of Mendeleev (initially treated like he was an Alchemist, like Newton), and later Wolfgang Pauli saved it from continuing to be about as illuminating a science as something like astrology.

I seem to be always ragging on science philosophers like Popper for trying to take induction (and even instrumentation) out of the equation for demarcation of the scientific method, but truth be told, he was correct in one respect. The best science, like life itself, has to work in some ways like natural selection. Even the best theory from the brightest minds are never really the last word on scientific reality. And beyond that, for a chemical automaton with a manifestly finite mind and even more limited senses, we do pretty well overall. I was even more critical of this particular issue myself until two colleagues basically knocked my socks off with the theory Higgs Loophole Gravitation. Finally, a couple of human beings grasp the essence of the means by which we all reason. None of us alone could have accomplished this, certainly not me. My mind seems to be the most limited of all, but it does have certain strengths.

Evidently, I'm finished with the fringe for now. One epiphany like that per lifetime is enough (Just ask Peter Higgs). Whether others get it or not is not even a concern.
 
...
Evidently, I'm finished with the fringe for now. One epiphany like that per lifetime is enough (Just ask Peter Higgs). Whether others get it or not is not even a concern.
Hope you stay around.

In my on-going description of the hobby-model, I go on, noting that both action processes mentioned above feature the same potentially infinite gravitational wave energy traversing the aether medium of space,

This is an aether model for the following reasons:

1) It allows for a hypothetical explanation of gravity as highlighted above,
2) It allows for a hypothetical explanation for the presence of particles from the dense state ball of energy that emerges from a big bang,
3) and it allows for the variable speed of light from one frame to another based on the relative wave energy density of space,
4) thus it allows for explanations that account for things that the scientific community cannot yet explain in terms of mechanics.

I find that approach a reasonable replacement for the lack of an identifiable gravitational field and the failure so far to find a gravitational particle. The wave energy density works better and explains more, IMHO.
 
The Higgs Loophole Gravity theory is not an aether theory for the following reasons:

1) There is no absolute time. Time is fundamental, but different intervals literally everywhere, in both quantum or cosmological scales.
2) There is no absolute space. In fact, there is NO space. The illusion of space is an artifact of the acceleration (change of direction) of virtual energy in the vacuum. Space as we perceive it does not exist for energy.
3) It is consistent with GR. The energy exchange between matter and the vacuum via the Higgs mechanism is consistent in direction and magnitude with gravitational acceleration / mass that is precisely equivalent to inertial mass. The warpage of space is replaced by the flow /acceleration of a superfluid vacuum that can and does move mass along with it.

If you are looking for an established physics theory that is a throwback to absolute space, time, and the luminiferous aether, you need look no further than the Casimir effect, Kip Thorne's wormholes, or other such scifi inspired nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Comparing your Higgs hypothesis to my layman science enthusiast hobby-model might make some standup comic routine material, and feel free to use it in any future presentations you make. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets a laugh. You can call it, The Infinite Spongy Universe Model.

The Higgs Loophole Gravity theory is not an aether theory for the following reasons:

1) There is no absolute time. Time is fundamental, but different intervals literally everywhere, in both quantum or cosmological scales.
2) There is no absolute space. In fact, there is NO space. The illusion of space is an artifact of the acceleration (change of direction) of virtual energy in the vacuum. Space as we perceive it does not exist for energy.
3) It is consistent with GR. The energy exchange between matter and the vacuum via the Higgs mechanism is consistent in direction and magnitude with gravitational acceleration / mass that is precisely equivalent to inertial mass. The warpage of space is replaced by the flow /acceleration of a superfluid vacuum that can and does move mass along with it.

If you are looking for an established physics theory that is a throwback to absolute space, time, and the luminiferous aether, you need look no further than the Casimir effect, Kip Thorne's wormholes, or other such scifi inspired nonsense.

I'm not looking for a theory that features absolute space, time, and the luminiferous aether, but thanks for the suggestion of where to look for that. My model is called a hobby-model as explained and defined in post #414, and the general description of it is stated in that post, and is being expanded on in recent posts.

I don't know the exact ramifications of "absolute space" but in my model space is potentially infinite and has always existed. If absolute space means that you can consider some given location as fixed, as in a "center of space", then my model does not invoke "absolute space". If absolute space means that space cannot be created, stretched, expanded, folded or bent, then that would be consistent with space in my model. All space is hypothesized to be filled with an aether that carries gravitational wave energy.

Time in my model simply passes at the same rate in all places at all times. That may or may not fit the description of absolute time, but if it does that's fine. Time simply passes, but the rate of time passing when measured by a clock varies depending on the energy density of the local environment (frame of reference) that hosts the clock. The energy density I refer to is the gravitational wave energy that traverses all space from all directions at varying densities based on the surrounding sources of gravitational wave energy, i.e. the surrounding massive objects. The density of the the gravitational waves in the local space determines the rate at which particles function, and thus causes the rate that clocks measure time to vary.

The aether in my model is not your Granddaddy's luminiferous aether that has previously been theorized and which could not be detected. I use the word aether to name the medium of space that carries gravitational waves emitted and absorbed by matter. I consider the aether to be undetectable, except to the extent that when we eventually detect gravitational waves, they will be traversing the aether medium of space.

I do like it that you have mentioned some things that differentiate your theory from the standard cosmological model, and I looks to me like you are trying to add to the standard model to explain the mechanics of gravity, using the Higgs mechanism from the start of time and space. I presume that as space emerges via the expansion of the initial point of energy, that matter also forms and fills all space, leaving no empty space. I look forward to a link and further description of it in your other thread when your paper is published.
 
Last edited:
Moving on, then the description of the model mentions energy density equalization (EDE), as one of the two major opposing forces. EDE and gravity play active roles in both action processes.

EDE is a commonly recognized phenomenon in nature at the levels where we can observe, and there are many cases of interactions that cause energy, as defined in my model, to expand when energy differentials combine. There are extremes of energy differentials combining at both the quantum level and the BB arena level, and in extreme conditions that are outside of our normal ability to observe, EDE is often the overriding force.

1) The dynamics of both action processes, quantum action and BB arena action, include continuous spherical gravitational wave action, causing gravitational energy waves to expand spherically, intersect, and overlap, merging into the same space.
2) The point of intersection is called a high density spot. The spot forms at the intersection between two parent waves, in my model. The intersection point is the point of conception of a new wave that will emerge and expand into exposed space.
3) The concept of "exposed space", refers to the logistical position of the high density spot relative to the two parent waves that intersect to create it. An observer at the point of intersection would have a view that could be characterized as that of a shared point on the surface of two inflating balloons where the two balloons touch, and the interior of the balloons that represent the parent spherical waves are exposed to the observer.
4) That observer, in a "freeze-frame" instant in time, could make measurements and determine the energy peak that is about to occupy that space. Further, from that vantage point an observer could evaluate the complexity of the wave energy environment surrounding that point of intersection and could quite accurately predict the locations of subsequent high density spots and their combined energy level values.
5) When a high density spot occurs, the scene is then set for the force of energy density equalization to take control. As the intersecting parent waves continue their expansion, the new high density spot expands out into the exposed space within the parent waves, under the force of energy density equalization.
6) This occurs because when two energy density locations have an energy density differential, like between the high density spot and the exposed space, the high energy will equalize with the low energy by expanding into the low energy density space (exposed space), causing a combination of energy levels into a merged level (the high density overlap). The energy density of the overlap is always higher than either of parent levels because it is a combination of the parent levels.
7) The expansion will continue into the exposed space until the entire space is equalized, or until the expansion is interrupted by intersecting with another expanding wave front.

The force of energy density equalization is responsible for all expanding gravitational waves in the medium of space. Particles and objects, on the other hand, are subject to the force of gravity as soon as they form. The two opposing forces are continually playing out against each other as each of the action processes govern their respective realms, the micro and macro realms.
 
And the description mentions gravity as the second of the two major opposing forces in the model, which this post will provide some detail about.

Preface: You know by now that I model the universe as spatially infinite, and the medium of space is likewise infinite and has always existed. I don't try to convince anyone of that; it is just my personal conclusion, and it helps define the scope of my model. The scope is infinite in three dimensions of space, infinite in the amount of wave energy that is always traversing the medium of space, and infinite in time, which simply passes, with no beginning and no end.

An empirical model of gravity has been built by the scientific community. It has been improved over the years, even centuries, based on observation and measurement, meaning gravity has been quantified pretty accurately, without being understood mechanistically. In my hobby-model, I attempt a mechanistic model of gravity, from my layman science enthusiast perspective, based on spherical gravitational energy waves emitted and absorbed by matter, and carried by the aether medium of space.

1) My version of the universe consists of two things; the aether medium of space, and waves traversing that medium. When I model the aether that carries gravitational waves, all I can say is that there isn't any way to detect its presence, because all matter is simply waves traversing it. If you could establish a point of observation on an advancing gravitational wave front in or around a particle it would be like looking in the abyss. No eyes could be there to see, no instrument could be brought with you to make any measurement, nothing physical would be encountered there other than the energy density of the surface of the wave front you were riding and the wave fronts you would encounter; they would at best be called ethereal. Undetectable aether fills all space, and gravitational waves traverse all points of space at all times, imposing varying densities on the aether at all points.

I use the term "aether" interchangeably with the phrase, "the medium of space", and sometimes just "space".

2) The aether is compressible. "Density", as it applies to the aether, is an expression of the state of compression of the aether at a given location.

The energy carried by a wave is what determines the compression that the wave imparts to the aether as it expands through the aether. Energy density is a characteristic of the total compression at a given point due to multiple gravitational waves passing through the same point in space. One wave compresses the aether, two waves passing the same point further compress the aether, three waves more so, four waves still more, and on up until mature's maximum aether compression is reached, which occurs at the big bang event. Each wave passing a given point adds its individual impact to the compression of the aether at that point.

3) There is a correlation between the energy density of the aether at a given point, and the gravitational wave energy density of the space containing and surrounding that point. Gravitational wave energy density is an attribute of the local environment, not just a single point, and density or energy density is an attribute of the medium at a given single point.

It is a seemingly slight distinction, but the energy density fluctuates point by point, and the wave energy density is more characteristic of a large enough space to contain at least a single particle, and generally a group of particles, or even a group of objects existent in the same wave energy density environment. As mentioned earlier, the wave energy density of the environment affects certain variables like the speed of light and gravity in the local environment, and more notably, the rate that clocks will measure the passing of time.

4) We have no hope of examining the aether itself, but observing the presence of particles in the aether is a different matter. A particle is gravitational wave energy contained and maintain within a volume of aether. There would be a particle boundary, which consists of a surface where there is a conjunction between the wave energy being absorbed by the particle, and the wave energy emitted from the particle space. The presence of particles is maintained by those two components; inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy. There is always at least a minimum of wave energy contained by the particle which represents its rest state, and the amount of contained energy increases as the energy density of the local environment increases.

Note that the volume of the particle's space and energy contained in it is not fixed, and varies relative to the energy density of the local environment. Exploring that can lead to some understanding of the effect that relative acceleration has on the frame dependent metrics of a particle.

5) In my model, particles initially form soon after the local big bang event. They are complex patterns of gravitational waves passing through the particle space from all directions. They start out as integral pieces of the dense state energy ball that emerges from a big bang event, and become individual particles as the force of energy density equalization begins to disburse the dense state wave energy ball into the preexisting space surrounding the big bang.

6) All particles, throughout the period of particle evolution from the dense state wave energy ball to the atomic particles, atoms and molecules that exist around us, have a common characteristic called high density spots. Dark matter, charged particles, neutral particles, all particles are composed of complex patterns of inflowing and out flowing wave energy, as well as gravitational wave energy contained within their particle spaces. All of the internal waves are continually intersecting from the moment that the wave energy arrives and is absorbed, to the moment that the energy is emitted back into the surrounding space. Each of those wave intersections causes a momentary high density spot, and it is those spots that give the particle its "particle" nature at any and every instant of time. The wave nature of the same particle is established by the spherically out flowing wave energy component of the particle.

If you have followed this sequence of posts, you know that I equate the dense state ball of wave energy that emerges from each big bang event, to any gravitational wave intersection within a particle's space at the quantum level. They all fall under the description of a "high density spot". They form at the point of intersection of any two or more gravitational waves. Big bang arenas are natures largest gravitational waves, and the tiny waves contained with a particle are natures smallest meaningful waves.

7) The distribution of high density spots within a particle space is not homogeneous unless the particle is at rest. A particle is at rest if the inflowing gravitational wave energy is equal from all directions, as in a particle in deepest space or in the lowest possible wave energy density conditions.

8) When a particle is not at rest, which is almost always, the distribution of high density spots within the particle space is offset in the direction of the net highest directionally inflowing wave energy density. This off set occurs naturally because there are more gravitational waves entering the particle space from that direction, and therefore, more new wave intersections within the particle in that portion of the particle interior.

9) Note that the distribution of high density spots within a particle determines the shape of the particle from the perspective of a local observer inside the particle space. From that internal perspective, a particle's high density spots will appear more dense in the direction of motion and therefore the particle will be flattened orthogonally to the direction of motion. This flattened shape will also cause the spherically out flowing wave energy component to have a broader wave front in the direction of motion, for example allowing the wave front to pass through two slits while the particle passes through one or the other.

10) Gravity is the effect that the wave energy density gradient of the local medium of space has on the particles in that space. Since each particle continuously emits out flowing gravitation wave energy into the medium of space, the medium of space at any instant has a gradient originating from the location of all particles and objects based on their emitted gravitational wave energy, traversing the medium at the speed of light and gravity. That gradient provides the directionally inflowing gravitational wave energy to all particles and objects, thus influencing the distribution of the high density spots within the particles, and determining their direction of motion. That is how gravity works in my hobby-model.
 
Last edited:
And the "formidable one sentence description" of my hobby model in post #414 closes with ... "while the whole model complies with the 'Perfect Cosmological Principle' which states that the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic in space and time, i.e. in this view the universe looks the same everywhere, the same as it always has and always will."

It is appropriate to mention the difference between the Cosmological Principle (CP) and the Perfect Cosmological Principle (PCP). Big Bang Theory, and other cosmologies that are based on a finite universe in space and time, generally comply with the Cosmological Principle, which states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a large scale. The CP accommodates a universe that goes through a series of state changes, from its implied origin as an infinitely dense point from which all existing space, energy, and matter has emerged, and in which various states of matter/antimatter formation and annihilation, inflation, particle formation, expansion, origination of the CMBR, and star and galaxy formation, to an acceleration in the rate of expansion. The Cosmological Principle also will accommodate an end game as entropy increases to the point that life can no longer exist, whether the universe expands forever in what is called the heat death of the universe, or somehow reverses the expansion and ends in a final collapse into a Big Crunch.

The difference between the CP and the PCP is that in the PCP, the changes of state that are experienced by each individual big bang arena would be considered small scale events, and on a grand scale like the BB arena landscape of the greater universe, there is no universal change in state over time. Further, while entropy is not predicted to be defeated by the standard cosmological model, the defeat of entropy is predicted by the PCP, and my model is in accord with the PCP.
 
@quantum_wave Thanks for clearing up about what you have been calling 'aether'. What you are describing is definitely not the pre-1905 aether (good!)

I'm liking what you are saying about the hobby model. Your theory likewise is building out the standard model, but in a different direction.

"I do like it that you have mentioned some things that differentiate your theory from the standard cosmological model, and I looks to me like you are trying to add to the standard model to explain the mechanics of gravity, using the Higgs mechanism from the start of time and space. I presume that as space emerges via the expansion of the initial point of energy, that matter also forms and fills all space, leaving no empty space. I look forward to a link and further description of it in your other thread when your paper is published."

We could care less about anything happening around the time of the BB, or Guth's inflationary theory. Those ideas will easily collapse of their own flaws without any help from us. Strictly speaking, ours is not a cosmological model at all. It deals with gravity, the Higgs mechanism and its effect on vacuum energy the way it is in the present universe, not a past one (everything traveling at the speed of light), not a future one (like a Higgs cascade to a lower energy), and certainly not in a multiverse. The state of the universe in the present is the only time frame anyone can actually experiment in.
 
@quantum_wave Thanks for clearing up about what you have been calling 'aether'. What you are describing is definitely not the pre-1905 aether (good!)

I'm liking what you are saying about the hobby model. Your theory likewise is building out the standard model, but in a different direction.
Thank you for recognizing that what I refer to as an aether medium of space is not your great grandaddy's particulate luminiferous light carrying aether. My version is the means in which the medium of space carries gravitational wave energy between objects with mass.

I like to acknowledge it when members take what I post in the light in which I intend it. Having alternative views, as I have, often dials up the worst in members who don't want laymen speculating around in matters of science.

Over the years I have adopted the hobby-model approach with my disclaimers, and my methodology of developing speculative ideas to fill the gap where there is no consensus in the scientific community. I generally keep those kind of ideas out here in the Fringe, which is a habit that is in line with the stated Fringe guidelines.
We could care less about anything happening around the time of the BB, or Guth's inflationary theory. Those ideas will easily collapse of their own flaws without any help from us. Strictly speaking, ours is not a cosmological model at all. It deals with gravity, the Higgs mechanism and its effect on vacuum energy the way it is in the present universe, not a past one (everything traveling at the speed of light), not a future one (like a Higgs cascade to a lower energy), and certainly not in a multiverse. The state of the universe in the present is the only time frame anyone can actually experiment in.
Thank you for that clarification. The cause of gravity is the quintessential topic that weaves its way all throughout my hobby model. In that regard, I have contemplated the vacuum energy density, also known to me as the cosmological constant, when speaking in terms of Big Bang Theory.

Vacuum energy density is the equivalent of the force of energy density equalization in my hobby-model. It is what causes high energy density space to equalize with low energy density space. The terms "high/low energy density space" refer to the gravitational wave energy gradient of the medium of space under consideration.

It follows that the gravitational wave energy density gradient of the local medium of space hosting a clock determines the rate at which the clock will measure the passing of time. My hypothesis is that the rate at which particles function is governed by the gravitational wave energy density in that vicinity.

Accelerating a clock relative to a rest frame will increase the gravitational wave energy density in which the clock is operating, and thus slow down the rate that it functions as it measures the passing of time. Thus time is not variable, the rate at which clocks measure time varies relative to the gravitational wave energy density of the environment in which the clock is functioning.

Vacuum energy density in my model can be viewed on the cosmological scale as in the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe, and also as it pertains to the equalization of gravitational wave energy density at any given locality within the medium of space, right down to my hypothesized "foundational" level, where quantum gravity plays out in continuous gravitational wave action, and where standing wave particles emerge as any big bang arena begins to expand.

Gravity and energy density equalization are opposing forces in my model. In that expanding environment, as particles form they are imparted with "separation momentum", but particles in close quarters move in the direction of the net highest directional source of energy density in the surrounding gravitational wave energy gradient of space. Thus gravity causes particle clumping even as the energy density is declining due to expansion, and that is gravity occurring within an expanding big bang arena :), so I say.
 
Vacuum Energy Density in a Big Bang Multiverse like my Hobby-Model

I just reread posts #414 to #434, and am generally satisfied with that as an updated summary level presentation of my hobby-model. The process of evolving my model and updating past posts and treads is on-going, and this step in the evolution of the model refers to the relationship between the consensus model's constant vacuum energy density of space, and my hobby-model's variable gravitational wave energy density gradient of the medium of space.

That means I am attempting to reconcile the concept of vacuum energy density, also known as the Cosmological Constant, an essential part of General Relativity, with my model's hypothesized force of energy density equalization. Both concepts, in their particular models, are associated with the expansion, and particularly in my model with the accelerating rate of expansion (dark energy) of the observable universe.

To put this addition in terms of steps:
1) The concept of the cosmological constant in the consensus BB model is of an as yet unknown but constant value for the vacuum energy of space. That differs significantly from my model, where arena action plays out across the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe, causing a varying value for the energy density of the universe at all points.

What I am hypothesizing is that what comprises the vacuum energy density of space in GR equates to gravitational wave energy traversing the medium of space in my hobby-model.

My layman level understanding of the Cosmological Constant and the concept of vacuum energy density is generally derived from, and is consistent with the pretty well summarized descriptions portrayed in links like the following:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/encyc/

In my own words, what the consensus cosmological model invokes as "vacuum energy", is what is left in "empty" space when you remove the curvature of spacetime, electromagnetic energy in space, and any as yet undetectable gravitational waves related to extremes and stresses of motion along spacetime geodesics, like when two stars closely orbit each other or when two neutron stars collide. They refer to the remaining energy in such "empty" space as the vacuum energy density, stated as a constant value of the Cosmological Constant (CC).

I present those links to explain the CC because in my model, gravitational wave energy traversing the medium of space is all there is in space; particles and matter are complex standing gravitational wave patterns, and photons are particles with a tiny amount of mass. Therefore, the vacuum energy, the energy of curved spacetime, electromagnetic wave energy, matter energy, and General Relativity's unique gravitational waves are all replaced by my hobby-model version of gravitational wave energy (GWE) in the medium of space.

So in my model, in place of GR, I invoke an undetectable medium that carries GWE, and within that medium, particles are concentrations of GWE with various degrees of stability.

2) Stability of a particle is a concept related to how well the complex wave energy density pattern of a particular particle is able to equalize its inflowing GWE with its out flowing GWE, over time in all environments. A stable particle like a proton (three quarks in the Standard Model) is very successful in achieving internal equalization and stability.

3) I speculate that the proton's stability is the result of a well defined particle boundary that has no niches for extraneous virtual particles or additional quarks, or bits of dark matter to invade and gain a foothold. The proton's relatively strong spherical GWE outflow is equal at all points on the particle boundary, and is able to interfere with and ward off any such intruders. Because of that, once a proton forms in the early stages of arena expansion, it is remarkably stable, accept in extremely high energy density circumstances.

4) The particle boundary is the "surface" where the directional inflowing and spherically out flowing GWE converge. It is within that particle boundary that gravitational wave energy is contained and is extremely dense, and where huge numbers of high density spots are continually forming as the internally traversing waves intersect with each other as they "flow" through the internal particle space. In terms of wave-particle duality in my model, the high density spots are what gives the wave-particle its particle nature, while it is the spherically out flowing GWE that gives the wave-particle is wave nature.

5) The Standing Wave Particle Model in my hobby-model has little relationship to the current Standard Model in terms of descriptions, but is the same in terms of observable functioning.

6) Wave energy is contained, and time delayed, within the particle space, which is the natural response that gravitational wave energy has when encountering the increased wave energy density within the particle; GWE slows down relative to its rate of expansion outside of the particle space.

7) In my model, the rate that waves traverse any given space is governed by the wave energy density of that space, and since particles are dense complex patterns of wave energy, directionally inflowing gravitational waves that encounter particles are significantly slowed as they flow through the particle. The contained energy within a particle is proportional to the degree of slowing that takes place, which is referred to as the particle-related time delay of gravitational wave energy.

8) The other gravitational time delay in my model is the time between the spherical gravitational wave energy emission by a particle or object, and the time it reaches another particle or object. That duration is variable based on the wave energy density of the medium of space through which the gravitational waves are passing. If the distance between objects is the same, but the gravitational gradient of the intervening space is different, the speed of gravity (and light) over that distance will be different, and proportional to the difference in the gravitational wave energy of the intervening medium of space.

9) Let me contrast that with the standard cosmological model. The motion of objects in space is governed by the curvature of spacetime, which is determined by the presence of energy and matter. The density of "empty" space, as described in the links provided earlier above, tells us that in addition to the curvature, space has a constant vacuum energy density value (CC) across all space.

Therefore, according to General Relativity, if we could know the value of the Cosmological Constant of space as it applies to the current model, we could determine if the universe will expand forever causing the "heat death" of the universe, or begin to collapse into a final inescapable "big crunch".

We can pretty well exclude the possibility that the universe is "flat" in terms of the "shapes" used in GR, because that would equate to the old analogy of standing the pencil on end.

10) In conclusion, and in opposition to those possible outcomes predicted by GR, my hobby-model predicts an eternal and infinite universe that defeats entropy and perpetually hosts life. You're welcome, lol.
 
Last edited:
I present those links to explain the CC because in my model, gravitational wave energy traversing the medium of space is all there is in space; particles and matter are complex standing gravitational wave patterns, and photons are particles with a tiny amount of mass. Therefore, the vacuum energy, the energy of curved spacetime, electromagnetic wave energy, matter energy, and General Relativity's unique gravitational waves are all replaced by my hobby-model version of gravitational wave energy (GWE) in the medium of space.

So in my model, in place of GR, I invoke an undetectable medium that carries GWE, and within that medium, particles are concentrations of GWE with various degrees of stability.

2) Stability of a particle is a concept related to how well the complex wave energy density pattern of a particular particle is able to equalize its inflowing GWE with its out flowing GWE, over time in all environments. A stable particle like a proton (three quarks in the Standard Model) is very successful in achieving internal equalization and stability.

(...)

6) All particles, throughout the period of particle evolution from the dense state wave energy ball to the atomic particles, atoms and molecules that exist around us, have a common characteristic called high density spots. Dark matter, charged particles, neutral particles, all particles are composed of complex patterns of inflowing and out flowing wave energy, as well as gravitational wave energy contained within their particle spaces. All of the internal waves are continually intersecting from the moment that the wave energy arrives and is absorbed, to the moment that the energy is emitted back into the surrounding space. Each of those wave intersections causes a momentary high density spot, and it is those spots that give the particle its "particle" nature at any and every instant of time. The wave nature of the same particle is established by the spherically out flowing wave energy component of the particle.

Reality is a wave?
 
@QW: The HM is looking very good indeed. Keep at it. I'm still not interested in applying HLG to cosmology yet, but if the HM does it well enough, maybe we won't have to.
 
Back
Top