bogie

Thanks. I am keeping my mind open to QFT, and metrics are always part of progress and change in the scientific community. I understand your role as a resident expert is to help with the metrics, and that role doesn't require you to engage me by contributing to topics like mine. However, I'm sure you can discuss various topics without applying your resident expert status, so look at the evidence presented by the heat map of the universe, and participate in the discussion of ideas if you want. There is a lot to learn about science from research into existing science that is not yet a consensus, but that uses known evidence to point to preconditions to our big bang; things that there are plenty of metrics from the scientific community to support. For example there are well documented observations and data that could be said to contradict the generally accepted model which predicts a homogeneous background emitted from the surface of last scattering. The hemispherical anisotropy observed by WMAP and Planck is significant and begs for a rethinking of the standard cosmology, which many professional scientists are engaged in doing. Look at what is needed to make those observations directly connected to a single Big Bang event. On the other hand, look how simple the explanation becomes if you predict a multiple Big Bang landscape that features the convergence of Big Bang arena waves to produce our own Big Bang arena wave. If there are multiple Big Bang waves across a potentially infinite landscape of the greater universe, one could expect the hemispherical and angular anisotropy that we observe in the CMB. I call the operative process Big Bang Arena Action, the macro level counterpart to quantum action that I use to describe wave-particles.

I was going to pick up on the comments in post #73, about what the CMBR of our observable universe would logically look like if my hypothesis about two parent Big Bang arenas converging as preconditions to our Big Bang event. It is about the observed hemispherical anisotropy. Preconditions, in this case are part of the potentially infinite past, where a history of Big Bang arenas would cause angular anisotropy which we observe in the WMAP and Planck sky surveys.

I noticed that his thread evolved from an interesting QFT discussion that ended at around post #41, where we had reached a point of talking about different cosmological models; Mordred obviously spent some years studying cosmology and seemingly preferred the "something from nothing" model which he referred to as the free lunch. I expressed my preference for a universe that had always existed. Often, cosmology enthusiasts who have made a personal choice between those two types of models will find their ways parting, as ours did. All of the content after that was from me, and featured my views about my preferred model. I posted a lot of content with a variety of ideas that are consistent with the always existed, wave energy density model. I left off temporally, after feeling guilty about the soliloquy, and started a new thread about my ISU model. That met with a fate that some alternative speculative ideas come to; there is not any extraordinary evidence, and any steps toward quantification are certainly open to dispute as to if there is really any quantification there or not. That thread got shelved, with the acknowledgement that if I come up with a model, presumably with math, I can request that the thread be reopened. This thread remains open for now, and contains many ideas about a universe that has always existed, and that is composed of nothing but wave energy, as opposed to Mordred's referenced symmetry breaking model where the standard particle model is invoked after an initial event (Big Bang) produced matter and anti-matter, and where there remains a preponderance of matter. I'll pick up where I left off, always aware that the thread could come to an abrupt end when the world gets hit by a huge asteroid, or by some less cataclysmic fate.

Thanks for the quick response. If the discussion is to be about measurement, I told you early that I don't have any extraordinary evidence. If there is any merit to my model, other than the fact that I can pump out word salad, then it has to be quantified. As for my model predicting 96%, not a chance. But as for making predictions, and explaining observations, I do like to think it is significant that my model so easily addresses hemispherical anisotropy, without having to resort of our local group of galaxies speeding at breakneck speed toward some great attractor, which is itself in question. Don't you think that the convergence of two or more expanding Big Bang arenas is reasonable? There are the other cosmological issues addressed that are interesting and consistent with my action processes that you would run across if you looked. I do have a good post or two on dark energy that includes the idea that there is a "force" of wave energy density equalization. As our arena expands, the space it is expanding into contains cooling and expanding remnants of the parent arenas, which logically are still expanding into their own parent arenas farther out. So the conclusion is that the wave energy density of the space our arena is expanding into, is itself declining in density, which would account for the accelerating rate of expansion. I have heard that joke. I understand your position, and it is on me to contribute to the next step of quantification, so I will be contemplating it.

I can and did. I described, from the perspective of my model, how relative motion could add a quantum, or more appropriately multiple quanta, to the complex standing wave pattern that represents the presence of a wave-particle. I gave real examples. Do you refute them? So you are saying I can't explain what I already did. Quantification of a very alternative model, that address many issues, is going to be a slow process, and people shouldn't be impatient. I would have liked to be working with you, and am fine with you being neutral, but you are clear about giving me the impression that you are being a headwind. However, progress is being made just in the fact that you now acknowledge that there is a vast difference in scale in my model vs what you are familiar with. My model is about a level of order below the level of the standard particle model, and you now realize that. BTW, I don't want to let slip past, the fact that in my last post I pointed out that my model does address the vast amount of unexplained energy in the universe; the figure is 96% of the mass of the universe, and the issue is that it is unaccounted for. My explanation is that there is a huge amount of unaccounted for energy in space in the form of light and gravitational wave energy, not to mention the wave energy in the composition of the oscillating background which equates to the idea of quantum foam. Note that I gave examples to support the idea that space is filled with light and gravitational wave energy. Do you want to take a position on that? Look here: http://www.space.com/11642-dark-matter-dark-energy-4-percent-universe-panek.html It is in line with the equivalence principle I mentioned this morning. Something that did slip by; you might recall that few a days ago I offered an explanation for the hemispherical anisotropy in post #31 that was interesting: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/104555-introduction-to-the-infinite-spongy-universe/?p=982531. "There is motion of the the earth, as part of the solar system, that affects the local wave energy density of clocks on earth, and motion of the entire solar system that affects the wave energy density of the entire solar system relative to the galaxy. There is even relative motion between galaxies that could come into play also. Some scientists attribute the hemispherical anisotropy detected by WMAP and Planck sky surveys to the fact that our local group of galaxies is "speeding" toward some great attractor or great accumulation of galactic structure. My model attributes the hemispherical anisotropy to the speculation that our Big Bang arena had preconditions that involved the intersection and overlap of two "parent" Big Bang arenas, each with a somewhat different level of wave energy density, as could be evidenced by their potentially different cosmic microwave background temperatures before they converged. Mix those two different backgrounds and I speculate that you would get hemispherical anisotropy in our background." Interesting concept, and the explanation is internally consistent with the action process I describe. Add that to the number of cosmological issuers my model addresses, and the circumstantial evidence grows. Ignoring a growing list of the cosmological questions that my model addresses is fine, but if you wave off my individual points, you are never seeing a growing body of ideas that my model supports, and offers wave energy mechanics to explain. I point out that the explanations are all internally consistent, and not inconsistent with observations and data, as far as I know. So though one might conclude that my progress toward quantification is slow, a reasonable person would see there is effort that only started here a few days ago, and might also agree that the ideas that my model contains do address many issues in modern cosmology, making it worth a look. I'll keep working on quantification as long as you allow it. You'll have it your way in the end.

I never used the term "quantum of action", and you were careless to equate the term with the processes of quantum action. I forgive your confusion because my model is quite Alternative. Since you get the point about the vast difference in scale between our models, there is another point to mention here about what my figure represents. Not just the difference between quanta in my model vs. "quanta of action" in an electron or proton, and maybe more importantly in a photon. Also the point is that within the finite Planck space occupied by one particle in the standard model, there are hundreds of thousands, even hundreds of billions of quanta in my model. The explanation involves the acknowledgement that when particles move relative to each other, they are moving through the existing background wave energy. 1) The amount of energy in any finite patch of existing background wave energy can be equated to an equivalent number of quanta, and there is a huge amount of energy in what some might think of as empty space. There is no empty space in my model, and the huge preponderance of the energy in our Big Bang arena is in the form of quanta in the space between particles and objects. The energy in space in the ISU is composed three parts, the foundational oscillating background that is defined as "otherwise waveless", the light and gravitational wave energy traversing the space between particles, which are the light and gravity waves traversing the "otherwise waveless" oscillating background, and the wave energy contained in the standing wave patterns of wave-particles and objects, which is where the numbers of quanta in an electron (381,239,356), and in a proton (699,955,457,517) at rest enter the picture of the energy in space. 2) A simile is that particles moving through the existing local wave energy density is similar to particles moving through the CMB. However, it is not exactly the same. I have described what the oscillating wave energy background is, what it is composed of, the mechanics of how it works, and why it is of significance in my model. Motion through the CMB increases the local temperature of the moving particle. That increase in temperature equates to an increase in relative mass within the particle space between it and a rest particle. It is akin to when a particle in an accelerator gains mass relative to a rest position.

You have twice mentioned "quantum of action". I have been long familiar with the term, and you are not understanding my model if you equate the quantum of action to a quantum in my model. The quantum of action is very basic to QM, and has a precise definition. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant You know that though, do you not? It is not the same thing as a quantum in my model. I hope you can tell that the micro level quantum in my model is a bit tinier than the Planck constant. Would you mind acknowledging that you understand that. If you see the difference, then when I answer your question, "What would it mean to change the quanta of action by 1 in an electron or proton?", I will know that you get the vast difference in scale.

I watched and listened and liked.

Let's step through this. The estimate of the number of quanta in a wave-particle in my model is being compared to something we can measure, if you agree with the equivalence between mass and energy. Look here: https://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/r/rest-energy.htm"Based on relativity theory, it is concluded that an equivalence relation exists between mass and energy. The energy is equal to the product of mass and the square of light velocity: E = mc2. The rest energy E0 is also the energy equivalent of a resting, i.e. immobile particle. Therefore, the rest energy of a proton for example is 938.257 MeV. The rest energy of 1 g mass is about 2.5·107 kWh. If you agree generally that 938.257 MeV is a reasonable figure for the rest energy of the proton, my ball park estimate of the numbers of quanta would be divided into the rest energy, to get the energy of a quantum at the level where quantum action plays out in my model (938.257 / 700,000,000,000 MeV). That tiny amount of energy represents the quantum, and the mass of a particle is the sum of the quanta that make up its complex standing wave pattern. That is a comparison with something we can measure.

It will take some time to address that part of your post, which I have started to work on. QWC was my a designation of my earlier model. After it had evolved, I had gone back to the drawing board, and what I called the model changed. BTW, brain-in-a-vat was accidentally a duplicate registration. I pointed that out some time ago, and the direction I got was to stop using it, and stick with my original registration, as "Bogie"

In regard to starting the process of quantification, you commented that (obviously) an equation would help. I had already presented my basic equation and linked to it here: I followed your lead, and I went on with beginning steps of quantification by detailing a ball park figure for the number of quanta in rest particles, given the description of wave-particles and quanta in my speculative model. At this point we are agreeing that by equating my definition of the number of quanta in wave-particles at rest, to your view of the energy of a proton and electron (you representing the scientific community here), is not a test of scientific validity of the equation, in the context of what would be expected if it was presented as theory, and if there were predictions and proposed tests that could be falsified. Never the less, the equation is valid in regard to math, and has my accompanying logic. My follow up use of other simple and common equations returns ball park figures that are useful in the process of quantification; they put into perspective how tiny a quantum is in the quantum action process of the model. That is a step toward quantification. Quanta in an electron = 381,239,356 Quanta in a proton = 699,955,457,517 Moving along, there is a quantum associated with both action process. The arena action process invokes a quantum of energy equal the the energy in the hot, dense, ball of expanding energy, referred to as an arena wave, that emerges from a Big Bang, and so in a multiple Big Bang arena model like the ISU, quantification at the macro level logically begins with the Big Bang itself, the energy of which is the quantum at the level of the landscape of the greater universe.

No.

The rest energy of the electron and the proton.

I don't deny it reads like word salad, and No, nothing interesting if you reject everything I find of interest. But with the idea of testing results, the equation is still of interest for the reasons stated in the last two posts, and because it is a starting point for quantifying the action processes in the ISU model in relation to known values in physics. The equation, and that graphic with it shows relationships, and explanations of the equation, in regard to one quantum. I'll just continue on and post some related ideas about quantification. From what we know about the proton at rest, and from what I hypothesize about the process of quantum action at the foundational level, we can derive a ball park figure (Wagner=wild arse guess not easily refuted) of the number of quanta within the proton, as I have described the quantum in my model. Divide the energy of a proton at rest by the number of quanta in the proton, and you derive the energy value of one quantum within the standing wave pattern that represents the "at rest" presence of the particle in my model. The speculation includes that there is a quantum of energy in each high energy density spot within the particle space of a wave-particle, and all of the particle space is filled with quanta, as described in the thread named, "Wave-Particle Speculations"; the premise discussed in that thread is that the wave-particle (all particles are wave-particles in the model) is composed of energy in quantum increments. We estimate the number of quanta contained in a proton at rest, and then, given the defined energy of a proton at rest in some standard unit, an estimate of the energy of a quantum in the model that equates to the contained energy of a proton could be derived. I am using the ratio of the rest energy of an electron vs. a proton, which is 1/1836, to equate the number of quanta in the proton to the number of quanta in the electron, which gives me a basis for a calculation. In addition, I am supposing that the number of quanta in an electron is equal to the number of quanta at the surface of the proton, based on some logic about the interactions between electrons and protons in an atom; word salad in the context of alternate speculation models, but for this exercise it serves as a mathematical relationship between the energy of the proton and the electron, to allow us to do the calculations. Area/Volume = (4 pi r^2)/(4/3 pi r^3) = 3/r = 1/1836, given the assumption above. Therefore r=3*1836 = 5508, thus the radius of the proton is equal to 5508 quanta across that diameter within the standing wave pattern of the proton wave-particle. 4 pi r^2 = surface area of a sphere 4/3 pi r^3 = volume of a sphere pi = 3.14159265 Quanta in an electron = 381,239,356 Quanta in a proton = 699,955,457,517 Those serve is useable numbers for talking purposes in my model.

What are you saying, that my answer wasn't interesting :shrug:? Many constructive questions could have followed from it. Also interesting about the equation is the "sameness" between the two action processes, and how the micro realm and the macro realm play out in the same space, at the same time.

It returns the point in the quantum action process where a new quantum of energy, in the form of an expanding spherical wave, emerges from the convergence of two or more parent quantum waves. It works at both the quantum level in regard to quanta that make up the wave-particle, and at the macro level in regard to when a new expanding Big Bang arena wave will emerge in the landscape of the greater universe, from the convergence of two or more parent arena waves.http://www.nbcnews.com/mach/space/these-waves-may-let-us-see-big-bang-s-earliest-n744851

Something did come to mind in regard to quantification. Does this equation qualify in any shape or form as a starting point of quantification of the basics of the ISU model?http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/102607-wave-particle-speculation/?p=971347

Understood. I'm good with that.

You are skipping over the important details so let me address them: You introduced the term "energy". After you did, I asked for you to define it, thinking that would set the stage for my precising definitions of wave energy and wave energy density, which I saw as a productive way of going forward. In referring to the two precising definitions that applied, I said "both of which may be entirely different than how you define the "energy" variable in your equation. How could we know though, if you didn't give me your definition? If you would rather interpret the post differently than I do, ... your prerogative. It still means what I say it means. I infer from your dismissiveness that you don't think it is important now to state your definition of such a central term to all physics, or to acknowledge my definitions which are central to my alternative model, as part of our communication. I still do though, because we would need to agree on definitions, or at least acknowledge each other's definitions, if we are going to communicate. Havning just addressed that, and now being of the opinion that you hesitate to acknowledge my definitions as being appropriate, you resorted to what I call a "tactic". Like I was some newbie, you gave me the bit about suggesting I come up with new and flashy words for my definitions. It is still funny when people try doing that, but those days are past for me. That inspired me to bring up the discussion of "precising" definitions. You didn't acknowledge that my "precising definitions" could add anything to the "discussion", and you didn't take exception to my introduction of the concept of precising definitions at the time, but now you want to claim you know the intent of what I said when I asked you for your definition of energy. I asked for it in an effort to get my definitions acknowledged, but instead, you come out strangely interpreting it wrong. Me saying that my definitions may be entirely different from the unknown definition, that you would not state (why does Harry Potter come to mind), was and is true until you state your definition. Interpret the statement where I lamented about how mine could differ, any way you want, it is true until you give your definition. You might come up with a definition that invokes "wave flooble density". However, I tired of trying to get your definition and I offered a possible definition that you might have used; energy is sometimes defined as the ability to do work. That may or may not be your definition, because after I offered that, you said, referring to your definition, "My definition of energy is the same as the one of mainstream physics, but since (as you have said) yours may differ, the physics definition doesn't matter. We're discussing your conjecture." Responding that way makes me wonder if you intend to communicate or if instead, simply repeatedly ask for explanations of things the many might say are clear. And there is the undertone of repeatedly asking for quantification, though I have twice responded appropriately, given the context of my presentation, and of the type of discussions that take place in the Speculations sub-forum. You could go about interpreting what I say any way that pleases you; my objections and corrections be darned. If I read you right, you are getting ready to put your moderator hat on, or will be now, lol, so you may as well put it on now. I'm too old to suffer the disparagement of continually having words put in my mouth, of having my statements misinterpreted willy nilly, and especially of being diligent in trying to respond, if no response will be able to alter some ultimate course you have in mind. Fifteen years or so of being on the alternative model side of science forums, or as some might say, the dark side, have made me quick to be suspicious of where people are coming from, especially moderators, when all of a sudden they start paying attention to me, lol, Maybe too quick. You tell me to if you would rather that I didn't offer any more speculations about the Infinite Spongy Universe.

Ok, understood. I didn't say mine might differ, I said my precising definitions would be descriptions of how I use the term in my model. One very basic definition of energy in physics is the ability to do work. My definitions of wave energy (light waves and gravitational waves), and wave energy density (the sum of the energy carried by all light wave fronts and gravitational wave fronts passing a given point in space) are precising definitions, relative to that common physics definition. You should agree that light wave energy is acknowledged by (almost) every college physics book. The concept of multiple waves passing the same point is also a common phenomenon addressed by (almost) every college physics book. The clocks experience a local wave energy density that governs the rate that they measure the passing of time. You are asking "how" two different clocks can measure the passing of time at different rates, not can they, because we both agree there is sufficient evidence to support the fact that they can and do. The operative word is "how", and I have answered that question, but I will repeat my answer from before, by saying that two clocks in relative motion will experience different levels of local wave energy density, just like the paths of two clocks in relative motion in GR will follow different geodesics which result in time dilation between them if I am wording that comparison correctly. In the ISU, the level of local wave energy density governs the rate that clocks measure the passing of time. Clocks in relative motion will measure the passing of time at different rates, but in order to detect that, you have to be able to compare them as they are in the act of measuring time, meaning you need data about both clocks to make the comparison. A good example of this is the solution to the twins paradox. The human bodies are the clocks. One twin travels and accelerates to relativistic velocities, and the other twin stays home. The traveling twin will come home looking like a much younger man than the twin who didn't travel. The explanation for the different rate of aging is that their rate of aging is governed by their individual local wave energy density environments. When you accelerate, especially to relativistic velocities, you are occupying a local environment that has an elevated level of wave energy density, relative to the level of the wave energy density in the environment occupied by that twin who stayed home, because the traveling twin is accelerating into the directionally inflowing component of the wave-particles that he/she is composed of, and that slows down the quantum action process that orchestrates the rate that wave-particles function in different wave energy density environments, just like relative motion of a moving clock relative to a rest clock. Agreed. Have you gotten any sense of my answer from the times I have addressed that so far? Do you think about my description of wave-particles when read my answers? Do you have a beginning concept of a wave-particle as a complex standing wave pattern that has two components; a directionally inflowing wave energy component, and a spherically out flowing wave energy component. Can you imagine such a particle structure, and can you imagine two separate particles in relative motion, because that is the nature of all particles in the ISU model. The directionally inflowing wave energy component from one particle is from the spherically out flowing wave energy component from various distant wave-particles or objects. No it doesn't. However, if you have two clocks in relative motion, my description suggests that each clock will be functioning in local environments that have different levels of wave energy density. If you are in either of the environments occupied by those clocks, you cannot tell if you are in motion, but if you see that the two clocks are measuring a different rate of time passing, I would determine that there is relative motion between the two clocks. The third clock, which might be referred to at rest relative to the other two clocks, would allow us to determine which of the other two clocks is moving fastest relative to the rest clock. Yes, they could, if they are in relative motion to each other, but the term "physical quantity" is not precisely correct. It is different measurements by two different instruments (clocks) that are in relative motion, and therefore are functioning in two different levels of wave energy density. In the ISU, that is a condition that causes the clocks to measure the passing of time at two different rates, because the local wave energy density governs the rate that a clocks measure the passing of time. If you define briefly as that instant, you might have your answer. The locations are the same for an instant with no duration, so no time passes. You said my "prediction" was wrong, so forgive me for thinking you considered it a prediction. This has been addressed above in this post I think, where I said: ~"One very basic definition of energy in physics is the ability to do work. My definitions of wave energy (light waves and gravitational waves), and wave energy density (the sum of the energy carried by all light wave fronts and gravitational wave fronts passing a given point in space) are precising definitions, relative to that common physics definition. Also, light wave energy is probably acknowledged by (almost) every college physics book. The concept of multiple waves passing the same point is also a common phenomenon addressed by college physics books." I'll add that gravitational wave energy is a relatively new discovery in physics, of a long predicted phenomenon. Would you say that the EFEs consider gravitational wave energy to be common to all massive objects? Or would you say that the curvature of spacetime accounts for most motion via geodesics, but in the case of massive in-swirling black holes, the equations require an additional prediction about gravitational waves in order to conserve momentum? I'm not certain which case applies in GR. However, in my model, the curvature of spacetime is replaced by the wave energy density of space, and all massive objects emit gravitational waves because they are composed of wave-particles. The in-swirling black holes gain mass relative to the objects not caught up in the in-swirling conditions because of their relative acceleration. The increase in their relative mass means that there is an increase in the out flowing wave energy emitted by them. We may eventually get into a discussion of quanta, and of how a change in the number of quanta of moving objects relates to relative motion, but that would take some time to present properly, and now probably is not the time. However, I can't resist mentioning the premise which is that wave-particles are composed of wave energy in quantum increments, and when they accelerate relative to other particles and objects, they gain quanta. In accord with the ISU process of quantum action, a quantum is a "meaningful" wave convergence (as opposed to the oscillations of the foundational background), and as particles and objects move, they are continually encountering more quanta as a consequence of their directionally inflowing wave energy component, while they are emitting quanta spherically as a consequence of their spherical out flowing wave energy component. The greater the relative directional motion, the more quanta are taken into the standing wave pattern from that direction relative to the quanta contained in object this the other participant in the relative motion. That is also the basic premise in the ISU's speculated solution to quantum gravity. The operative fact is that the clock on the dark side is an "earth's diameter" further from the sun, and that is all it takes for the wave energy density of the clock to be lower, which is the condition in my model that would govern that the clock would run faster than an identical clock on the sunny side. I usually use the word velocity, not speed, so I doubt if I said it that way. Relative velocity and relative motion would sound more like something I said. In the east traveling clock vs. the west traveling clock scenario, we have relative motion. I did not say the rate that the two clocks measure time depends on their speed relative to some rest frame, I said it is governed by the different level of wave energy density in which the clocks are functioning, because the level of wave energy density governs the rate that they will measure the passing of time. That scenario included the phrases "traveling in the direction of the rising sun" vs. "traveling in the direction of the setting sun". The premise is that the rate that wave particles function is also relative to the local level of wave energy density. Clocks of all kinds are usually composed of wave-particles, and when the wave energy density at the location of the clock changes, the rate that the wave-particles function changes. If the wave energy density increases, the rate that the particles function decreases. When I refer to the rate that wave-particles function, it references the rate that the process of quantum action is playing out in that local wave energy density environment. There is motion of the the earth, as part of the solar system, that affects the local wave energy density of clocks on earth, and motion of the entire solar system that affects the wave energy density of the entire solar system relative to the galaxy. There is even relative motion between galaxies that could come into play also. Some scientists attribute the hemispherical anisotropy detected by WMAP and Planck sky surveys to the fact that our local group of galaxies is "speeding" toward some great attractor or great accumulation of galactic structure. My model attributes the hemispherical anisotropy to the speculation that our Big Bang arena had preconditions that involved the intersection and overlap of two "parent" Big Bang arenas, each with a somewhat different level of wave energy density, as could be evidenced by their potentially different cosmic microwave background temperatures before they converged. Mix those two different backgrounds and I speculate that you would get hemispherical anisotropy in our background. Yes, lower relative to some clock heading toward the setting sun, but the velocity of the clock relative to the velocity of the rotation of the earth would help determine the degree of the effect. However, in the dialogue used to discuss the difference in the rate that west bound clocks measure the passing of time, compared to the rate that east bound clocks measure the passing of time, I used phrases like an east bound clock is heading into the rising sun. Late in the day, an east bound clock is heading away from the setting sun. I haven't given much thought to the different scenarios, but I could tell you which of two clocks would run fast relative to the other if you define the scenario relative to each clock's motion vs. the sun, moon, etc. I'm sure there is evidential data about the variance in the rate that clocks would measure time in such a scenario? I don't know. Do you want a "wagner", which in the circles of us cosmological speculators means a wild arse guess not easily refuted, lol. I'd guess you don't. I won't bother you with my many "Wagners" then, though I have a few interesting ones that reveal the depths of "tiny-ness" that have been contemplated in the ISU model. I will say that when I reach the practical bottom of the infinitesimal, I am down there in the realm of the "otherwise waveless" oscillating background, or in terms of the quantum foam mentioned earlier by Velocity_boy in post post #2 or #3, I think it was. I don't think I said that in that way, and I think you are taking my discussion about relative motion of two clocks out of context. I don't think I said that either in regard to a common rest frame, which in your model would probably have to be inside the earth. When you say I said something, put my statement in quotes along with your comment about it, if you want my answer to be appropriate to the actual context. As for the different rates, based on different latitudes, there would be different distances between the clocks and other massive objects like the sun and the moon. Those different distances will cause slight differences in each clock's local wave energy density. Let me ask you about the curvature of spacetime and the geodesics that describe the predicted motion of the two clocks. Would the location of the sun affect the predicted paths or would it affect time dilation calculations? I don't doubt that. I also don't know the context of my statement that you are implying might be wrong, given that data. Even the poles, which you say are essentially at rest, are essentially at rest relative to something, maybe only to each other. Tell me what you think they are essentially at rest relative to, and I'll be able to determine if you have accounted for the influence of other bodies in space, like the moon, planets, and the sun, and all of the permutations of their motion relative to the location of the poles in space, which would be contributors to the wave energy density environment of any clocks positioned at the poles. You would have to take all of that into account to get the best answer using SR/GR. Why would you not have to consider the influence of the mass of surrounding objects in the ISU mechanics?

Well, if you are serious, then you do understood it partially. The rotation of the earth can cause the effect, but the bigger picture is that any relative motion between two clocks causes the effect, as stated in my last post and in other places in this thread. If one clock is stationary on the surface of the earth, and the other clock is in motion relative to the location of the first clock, then there is resulting relative motion between the clocks, and they will measure the passing of time at different rates because relative motion means that the environment of each clock will have a different level of wave energy density, and the local wave energy density of a clock governs the rate that it measure the passing of time. No; you are not realizing that the sun and the moon are also sources of wave energy, and their relative motion will also contribute to the local wave energy at the location of a "stationary" clock, and of a clock that is in motion relative to the stationary clock. That statement isn't demonstrating a good comprehension of the details in the last post. I didn't use the term bigger anywhere, and yet you have invoked it. What do you mean by bigger in the context what you quoted from my last post? Or better yet, change the statement by using higher of lower, if are referring to the local wave energy density. You are the one that hasn't given your definition of "energy", lol. I gave my definitions of wave energy and wave energy density again in the last post. Your statement doesn't seem to acknowledge any understanding of what my definition of wave energy is, and yet that definition was clearly stated in the last post, and earlier, and the definition is in line with my methodology of reasonable and responsible step by step speculations that I use to build the model. No. Clocks do not measure the local wave energy density, they measure the rate that time passes at the local level of wave energy density. The difference is subtle. I assume you mean, how can they measure a different rate of time passing. In my model, if they are traveling in different directions, they will measure the passing of time at different rates relative to each other because they will each experience a different level of wave energy density. You already know that the fact is that they will measure time differently, because you posted data that says they do. What is your explanation for why east bound clocks measure time to be passing at a slower rate? Take a minute and mention the science you are relying on to explain how they measure the rate of time passing differently. Your motion is not the same as the motion of the clock, so I assume you are in the same location as the clock, as in if you are wearing a watch. But if you mean that a clock that is moving will measure the rate that time passes at a slower rate than a clock that is at rest relative to the moving clock, then that is true. Therefore, when that occurs, in my model you can infer that the local wave energy density is higher in the location of the moving clock, than it is in the location of the rest clock, as explained in the last post. This is an issue of integrity, and I stand by my reputation for integrity across hundreds of conversations on many forums. I readily admit when I am wrong, but at the same time, I will point out when others put words in my mouth. Your accusation that I have low integrity in regard to my position about the mechanics of how clocks measure the rate of the passing of time is not consistent with the reputation that I have built over my many years of discussing clocks, time, relative motion, wave energy, wave energy density, and the ISU model. All through that time, and it is all recorded on the internet and at various science forms, I have been consistent in my predictions. You are a newbie in regard to gaining an understanding of my model, and a skeptic to my ideas if I may suggest that, based on your repeating the same questions from different angles, and I wouldn't find anything wrong with that position, as long as you read and try to see my points. That "circular" claim is not consistent with my statement. Wave energy should not be a mystery to you, and has many usages as a common form of energy. We could get this resolved if you give me your definition of energy as it pertains to the equation you gave. This might be the third time asking and the third time I have said I could differentiate between the word "energy" as your are using it, vs. the way I use it in the terms "wave energy", and "wave energy density". I am certain that the "energy" you are talking about is not wave energy in the terms that I have defined wave energy, on several occasions in this thread. I can differentiate your definition of energy from my wave energy, and wave energy density, but am waiting for you to disclose your definition; by now I'm suspecting you won't, but I could be wrong. If by smaller, you mean won't the local level of wave energy density generally be lower on the dark side, yes, since the dark side of the planet is further away from the sun which is a major contributor to the differing local wave energy density across the surface of the earth. No. Do you want me to write a few paragraphs on that concept, or would do you want to move along without the benefit of additional details? What ever you are referring to as the "earlier clock analysis", that is not true in the ISU model, and it is contrary to what I have said when I have explained it. Absolute rest is a very rare condition for any clock to be in, in terms of the definition of "at rest" that I gave you in the last post. There is no absolute location in space in my model, and I doubt if you know of a model where absolute space, or absolute "at rest" is common. You couldn't get "any" clock result; clocks would not be speeding up and slowing down randomly as you watch them. The changes in the rate that they measure the passing of time would correspond to changes in the local wave energy density. I mentioned earlier that you cannot detect the change in the rate that your local clock measures the passing of time, because you are in the same reference frame (in you model), which is the same as saying you are in the same local wave energy density environment in my model. Yes they do. Granted the changes are tiny, and you have to be looking with very precise instruments at the two clock locations on the earth to have any chance of detecting the change in the rate that they individually measure the passing of time. It is effectively too small to make much difference in any measurement, but when talking about the mechanics of how clocks measure the rate that time passes in the local wave energy density environment, there is a theoretical variance. I would say you are wrong on both counts according the basics of the ISU model. Do you want me to write a few paragraphs to explain why that is not precisely true in the ISU? For example, is the altitude the same, is the latitude the same, is the position of the two clocks changing in different ways relative to the position of the moon and sun, etc. Also not true according to my model. Clocks at different latitudes measure the passing of time a slightly different rates, buy it is a tiny variance, extremely hard to detect and measure; you would need very precise instruments to detect the variance.

Continued comment in regard to the discussion with Swansont: I said earlier, the rotation of the earth would have an effect on the wave energy density environment of the clocks traveling east vs. traveling west, so the clock that is traveling with the rotation, which I define as keeping up with the position of the sun in the sky (east to west across the surface of the earth), would measure time at a slightly faster rate than the clock that was traveling against the rotation, which I define as heading into the rising sun, (west to east across the surface of the earth). The explanation for this, according to the ISU model, is that the sun emits a massive amount of gravitational wave energy, and so a clock heading in the direction of the rising sun (west to east) would experience an increase the local wave energy density and the rate that it measures the passing of time would slow down, relative to a clock traveling with the sun across the sky (east to west), and heading into the setting sun. Swanson has posted that the evidential data confirms that the east-west traveling clock will run faster than the west-east traveling clock, and that data matches my prediction. Now, let's address the various questions, which, if I understand correctly are, what is wave energy, what is wave energy density, how does relative motion affect the local wave energy density of a clock. The answer to the first question, what is wave energy, is that in the ISU model, all particles are wave-particles, and all objects are composed of wave-particles. Wave-particles are composed of nothing but wave energy made up of two components, a directionally inflowing wave energy component that arrives from distant particles and objects, and a spherically out flowing wave energy component that becomes the inflowing wave energy of distant particles and objects. That means that all space is filled with wave energy, defined as light waves and gravitational waves, coming and going in all directions, because the source of wave energy is all particles and objects, and space is filled with particles and object engaged in providing a continual source of wave energy. The answer to the second question, what is wave energy density, is that all points in space contain wave energy because there is a continual flow of light and gravitational wave energy at all points, and each wave has an expanding wave front that carries the wave energy. The level of wave energy density at any point in space is the sum of the energy carried by all of the energy wave fronts that are passing that point at any given instant. The answer to the third question, how does relative motion affect the local wave energy density of a clock, is that a clock at a stationary point, a rest position relative to the rest of the universe, is experiencing directionally equal inflowing wave energy from the surrounding space; that is the definition of "at rest" in the ISU. If that clock moves in any direction, it will experience an increase in directional wave energy density in that direction, relative to its previous rest position, because it is moving into a distant source of directional wave energy. The premise is that the rate that a clock measures the passing of time is governed by the local wave energy density, and when our rest clock moved, the energy density increased in the direction of motion, and the clock slowed down. So a moving clock will measure time at a slower rate than the same clock would have measured the passing of time in its previous rest position.

OK, a stationary clock is a clock at rest, as I suggested, and your stationary clock is at rest relative to the earth. But of course, for analysis of the effect that the local wave energy density has on the rate that each of the three clocks in question will measure the passing of time, using some particular coordinate system is appropriate. However, no matter what coordinate system you use, in my model, infinite space is filled with wave energy density from a potentially infinite history of particles and objects in relative motion across the universe. That means that at any given location in your coordinate system, say at the location of your stationary clock on earth, the energy density of that location is continually changing. Are you Ok with that concept, or must I also change my model to disregard that concept? Are you saying that if they pass each other, neither can be at rest with respect to the other. I am saying that either clock can be considered at rest relative to the other. I understand, and if you say we are discussing an east west moving clock, and a west east moving clock, relative to a "stationary" clock on the ground, then that is understood. I'm good with a coordinate system like that. Is it spacetime, or Euclidean, or does it even have a given name? Regardless of what you call the coordinate system, in ISU Model the terms wave energy and wave energy density have specified meanings. See my mention below of lexicons used with various models. In the context of east west, west east, and a stationary ground clock, in the coordinate system where you assign an inertial frame to each clock, then each clock will be in relative motion with the other two. It is the same in the ISU I would think, but the operative Wave Energy mechanics are quite different, and that is the point I'm trying to get across. Ha ha. I have seen newbies fall for that over the many years I have been talking about cosmological models. I laugh every time I see someone try to add words like "flooble", as you suggest I do, to the lexicon. Instead of making up words, my practice is to add a "precising" definition in the content: Precising definition - WikipediaWikipedia wiki Precising_definition "A precising definition is a definition that extends the lexical definition of a term for a specific purpose by including additional criteria that narrow down the set of things meeting the definition. For example, a dictionary may define the term "student" as "1. anyone attending an educational institution of any type, or 2. anyone who studies something." However, a movie theater may propose a precising definition for the word "student" of "any person under the age of 18 enrolled in a local school" in order to determine who is eligible to receive discounted tickets." But if you read the thread you will see, I have defined wave energy and wave energy density as it applies to my model in this thread. Like you say, Physics has a definition of energy, and equations that describe it. However, the term "energy" has numerous definitions in physics, and I am certain that I will be able to compare the precising definitions I have presented already, with the specific definition you are using for energy in the equation you gave. Ha ha, there must be a place I can insert that word in my model. Actually, it is now in the content of a Google search of the ISU if ScienceForums.net is linked to the Google search engine; of course "flooble" will not be attributed to me unless I define it as part of the lexicon. We talked earlier about quantifying my ideas, and I responded to you why I focus on the overall model first to try to make sure everything is internally consistent, conceptually. There will be a time to focus on quantification of my model so that it can be mathematically compared to the standard cosmology, or any other model, but I'm certain that there is much content that I have yet to incorporate into the ISU model, and any given addition could change numerous internal relationships.