The simple cause of cosmic inflation (Big Bang, Expansion of Space)

[810]

In short, the reason expansion was fast early on is due to the high amount of matter to energy wave conversion.  Space is energy waves.  Then when the universe cooled and went dark, expansion slowed.  When stars began glowing, the additional energy released by the galaxies filled with stars continued to expand the distance between heavenly bodies.  The following video explains this within the first minute better than what was just typed.

LINK REMOVED

Edited January 19, 2019 by Strange

[Strange]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to Speculations. If you want to discuss your idea, do it here. This is not a place to advertise your YooToob channel. 

 

[810]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

!

Moderator Note

Moved to Speculations. If you want to discuss your idea, do it here. This is not a place to advertise your YooToob channel. 

 

This is not "speculation", it is fact.  There was not an intention to push an already successful YT channel.  Instead of viewers focusing on the subject at and, they will now focus on the falsities that you claimed.  All you needed to include in the comment was "Moved to Speculations".  But instead, you made it about you with a personal point of view.

[Phi for All]

18 minutes ago, 810 said:

This is not "speculation", it is fact.  There was not an intention to push an already successful YT channel.  Instead of viewers focusing on the subject at and, they will now focus on the falsities that you claimed.  All you needed to include in the comment was "Moved to Speculations".  But instead, you made it about you with a personal point of view.

Personal point of view? He let you know about the rule we have against advertising, and posting videos without an overview of what's to be discussed. There was nothing personal about it. Perhaps you aren't used to moderated sites. 

Discussing the points you want to make from a video is frustrating. Hard to quote, we have to keep going back to listen to what was said, maybe can't understand the audio, and a hundred other factors that hinder meaningful scientific discussion. Sorry, the written word is much better for our particular forum. Not your fault we're that way, but if you want to express your idea here, you have to write it out.

Still interested in discussing your idea? 

First, what's an "energy wave" and why you think "space is energy waves"? Thank you.

[810]

18 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Personal point of view? He let you know about the rule we have against advertising, and posting videos without an overview of what's to be discussed. There was nothing personal about it. Perhaps you aren't used to moderated sites. 

Discussing the points you want to make from a video is frustrating. Hard to quote, we have to keep going back to listen to what was said, maybe can't understand the audio, and a hundred other factors that hinder meaningful scientific discussion. Sorry, the written word is much better for our particular forum. Not your fault we're that way, but if you want to express your idea here, you have to write it out.

Still interested in discussing your idea? 

First, what's an "energy wave" and why you think "space is energy waves"? Thank you.

Hooray!  Someone interested in the topic.  Gotta say, two negative points is a good way to feel welcomed.  I would never dish out negative points in the first place, it is childish and a method of bullying.  An energy wave is any form of energy propagation through a medium.  In this instance the medium is space, and the waves are the full spectrum of possible electromagnetic waves.  Space is simply energy waves propagating, overlapping each other.  Energy waves are moving in all directions, some omnidirectional, and some of a more focused nature.  The super singularity that existed at moment zero was a solid, yet did not have any spacial or time properties because there had yet to be any movement, which is the nature of time.  Nothing existed outside the singularity, because the singularity was dimensionless, it was a point of potential that contained all of the hybrid matter/energy that makes up our universe.  The singularity began to expand due to the nature of matter seeking the path of least resistance.  The initial space, that was created between the first individual chunks of matter as they exploded outward in a spherical shape, was energy waves.  Energy, like the gaseous state of matter, when thinned out enough, occupies a larger footprint than condensed matter.  The reason the initial inflation happened so quickly is because most of the matter was converted to energy, creating space.  Then the universe cooled, and inflation slowed, until the stars began to glow, releasing more energy waves into the universe in all directions, creating more space between heavenly bodies.  I will wait for someone to respond before I delve into greater detail.  Thanks for the dialogue.

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, 810 said:

Gotta say, two negative points is a good way to feel welcomed.  I would never dish out negative points in the first place, it is childish and a method of bullying.  

Or it's a way for a serious scientist to express dismay over your explanation. You have some obvious misconceptions stated as fact, and that tends to frustrate uber-picky science geeks like us. Some folks use the reputation system because if they said what they were feeling, they'd get dinged by staff for being uncivil. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

6 minutes ago, 810 said:

An energy wave is any form of energy propagation through a medium.  In this instance the medium is space, and the waves are the full spectrum of possible electromagnetic waves.  Space is simply energy waves propagating, overlapping each other.

OK, but how can space be both the wave AND the medium the wave is traveling through? Do you see the contradiction here? 

 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, 810 said:

they will now focus on the falsities that you claimed. 

!

Moderator Note

I did not claim any "falsities". I simply noted the rules: the correct place for your personal theory and the rules about advertising.

 

[Mordred]

tAlright first off there is no accurate facts in any of the above descriptive. For starters non of the terminology usage is accurate to the scientific definitions of those terms. So lets address this first. 

Space is simply volume, it in itself is not a medium.

Energy is the ability to perform work it is a property of a system not a substance.

Dimension under physics and mathematics is any independent variable for example under  3 dimensions each coordinate axis is an independent variable. One can change location on the x axis without changing the coordinate value of the Y  or Z axis.

 Now terminology and poor descriptive aside, from what you describe above it sounds like you visualize an expansion radiating out from a central point. The point of the singularity with your energy waves radiating outward. However this will not match the measured observation of how expansion occurs. Expansion follows the cosmological principle with strong observational support. See here for a brief descriptive of the Cosmological Principle.

Also motion is not required for time to pass. Time is also a measure of an objects duration in the same state and not just a measure of rate of change.

Edited January 19, 2019 by Mordred

[810]

Just now, Phi for All said:

You have some obvious misconceptions stated as fact

 

Please elaborate.

 

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

OK, but how can space be both the wave AND the medium the wave is traveling through? Do you see the contradiction here? 

 

Glad you asked.  There is the probability factor to keep in mind also, which is what makes this a chore to express in words.  Lets reduce the initial super singularity down to a dot, surrounded by 26 dots in the shape of a cube.  There is no space between them, so all 27 dots are one point in space at moment zero.  Lets also imagine each dot as the individual sands in a bucket, or the water molecules of a pond.  This would dictate that the entire contents of the universe consists of fundamental dots/pixels/smallest common denominator.  Without dimension, all dots would be located in the same single point.  Now, because space does not yet exist, there is no external pressure keeping the super singularity together, so it began to explode/divide in an almost perfect spherical explosion.  Keep visualizing the 27 dot model. 

Moment 000, all dots occupy the same single point.

Moment 001, 26 dots are now located one frame away from the center dot in an almost perfectly surrounded distribution around the center dot.  This would be the first frame of the motion picture, the smallest unit of measurement possible, smaller than planck.  Now dimension exists. Time is not technically a dimension, it is a fourth variable, only an account of the movement from A to B within space.  In order for the dots to have been able to thin out, something needed to be created between them, which was energy in the form of electromagnetism.  The super singularity did not have heat energy at moment 000 because everything was a single point, but the heat potential was present.  As moment 001 switched to 002 and beyond, the heat energy released as it increased, resulting in more space between dots.  We all know that the universe began very bright, then went dark until the stars began to glow.

Now, how can waves of energy be space?  Well, energy does not move through or ride on space, because energy is space.  Only matter moves through space.  Yes, matter is energy, but bound together in a local region.  Matter is much like a rock thrown into a pond.  Envisioning this reality is hindered with the old way of thinking that energy is moving through something other than other energy.  I will stop here and tackle the points Strange brought up.  Thanks yall!

 

[Mordred]

Ok last response confirms that you have an inhomogeneous expansion ( a preferred directional component) with expansion radiating outward from a central point. I can promise you that this will not match any observational evidence of how expansion occurs.

[Phi for All]

10 minutes ago, 810 said:

The super singularity did not have heat energy at moment 000 because everything was a single point, but the heat potential was present.

We can't know anything trustworthy from this time, but we do know that the kind of extreme densities involved also involve extreme heat.

10 minutes ago, 810 said:

We all know that the universe began very bright, then went dark until the stars began to glow.

IIRC, light didn't have enough room to travel until about 400,000 years after expansion began. Mordred can confirm.

[810]

27 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Space is simply volume, it in itself is not a medium.

A volume can not exist without a medium.  A volume must be constructed of something.

28 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Energy is the ability to perform work it is a property of a system not a substance.

Agreed, in a way.  A spherical wave propagating outward from a rock thrown into a pond is the byproduct of the transfer of energy from molecule to molecule.  The energy itself lacks mass, yet it exerts a force, so it occupies the universe.  It is not a tangible substance, but it can be measured and interacted with.  Energy is not only the ability to perform work like getting from A to B, it is also the fabric of space.

 

34 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Also motion is not required for time to pass. Time is also a measure of an objects duration in the same state and not just a measure of rate of change.

Motion is the strict requirement for time to pass.  If the super singularity did not begin to change it's state, time would not have existed.  I believe you are envisioning time in the current state of the universe.  Yes, right now, we could stand still in a room with nothing moving, and time will pass, but everything else is moving, Earth is moving around the sun, within the spiral galaxy, and the galaxies are moving.  If all movement stopped of every kind.  The entropy would not increase, effectively freezing time.

[Mordred]

24 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

We can't know anything trustworthy from this time, but we do know that the kind of extreme densities involved also involve extreme heat.

IIRC, light didn't have enough room to travel until about 400,000 years after expansion began. Mordred can confirm.

Correct the mean free particle path of the photon prior to the surface of last scattering (CMB) due to the opacity of free electrons prior to stable formation of atoms is roughly [latex] 10^{-33}[/latex] metres. Once stable atoms formed the mean free path of photons becomes infinite in possible extend.

18 minutes ago, 810 said:

A volume can not exist without a medium.  A volume must be constructed of something.

Agreed, in a way.  A spherical wave propagating outward from a rock thrown into a pond is the byproduct of the transfer of energy from molecule to molecule.  The energy itself lacks mass, yet it exerts a force, so it occupies the universe.  It is not a tangible substance, but it can be measured and interacted with.  Energy is not only the ability to perform work like getting from A to B, it is also the fabric of space.

 

Motion is the strict requirement for time to pass.  If the super singularity did not begin to change it's state, time would not have existed.  I believe you are envisioning time in the current state of the universe.  Yes, right now, we could stand still in a room with nothing moving, and time will pass, but everything else is moving, Earth is moving around the sun, within the spiral galaxy, and the galaxies are moving.  If all movement stopped of every kind.  The entropy would not increase, effectively freezing time.

Space is a term that literally means the amount of volume. Look up the definition of space. Space is not a medium.

Motion is not a requirement of time. I can measure the amount of time a rock stays a rock without changing its composition or location. Motion is a vector quantity and temperature can change in value in a given time frame at the precise same location. Temperature is a scalar quantity. Energy is not a fabric or any other form of substance. It is a property of any field, object etc to perform work. Ignoring the proper physics definitions will not allow your model to progress far.

Note to other readers, OP has reached his 5 post first day limit. Which after today will no longer apply.

Edited January 19, 2019 by Mordred

[MigL]

So, that original point ( at time t=0 ), which was then surrounded by 26 points  ( at time t=1 unit ) is the center of the universe ?
That's what Mordred is saying doesn't match observational evidence.

Also you keep comparing space to a pond.
In a pond, water 'waves' to transfer energy from one point to another.
What exactly waves in 3D space, or a simple volume ? 

[beecee]

4 hours ago, 810 said:

In short, the reason expansion was fast early on is due to the high amount of matter to energy wave conversion.  Space is energy waves. 

Not really. Space is what exists between you and me at this time. The reason why space expands, we are not really sure, but that same expansion can be "nullified" by local regions of high mass/energy densities and the resultant gravity.

Quote

Then when the universe cooled and went dark, expansion slowed. 

Wrong again...the universe was opaque for at least around 385,000 years after the BB due to the  the scattering of photons before recombination, and until temperatures had dropped far enough to enable electrons to couple with atomic nuclei. Expansion slowed and continue to slow up until around 5 billion years ago, as a result of mass/energy densities of the then universe. As that mass/energy density lessened with continued expansion, acceleration in that expansion became evident, except for isolated regions of high mass/energy densities such as our local group of galaxies. The impetus behind the continuing acceleration is unknown and is what we determine as DE.

Quote

When stars began glowing, the additional energy released by the galaxies filled with stars continued to expand the distance between heavenly bodies.  The following video explains this within the first minute better than what was just typed.

Actually stars congregated into systems, galaxies, groups of galaxies, and great walls of galaxies under gravity, with expansion only evident over large scales.

Quote

Motion is the strict requirement for time to pass. 

Not at all. When Einstein first formulated GR, the prevailing thought at that time was that the universe was static...no mention of time stopping at all. Time more accurately is simply the intervals between sequential events. Both time and space of course also depends on one's frame of reference.

Quote

If the super singularity did not begin to change it's state, time would not have existed. 

Most Physicists today do not accept that singularities exist, [super duper or otherwise] other then as defined by where our laws of physics and GR do not apply. That is the quantum/Planck level. 

Quote

This is not "speculation", it is fact. 

No, it is exactly that...unsupported speculation. If I had a dollar for every "would be if he could be" that claimed he had some new "theory" that debunked a supported incumbent model, I would be a rich man.

Quote

 All you needed to include in the comment was "Moved to Speculations".  But instead, you made it about you with a personal point of view.

It is/was obvious to all why it was moved to the speculation section, and that was because it was speculation. The "point of view" you claim, is not a "point of view" rather it is the accepted model based on observational evidence that  explains what we observe. That model may change in the future as further observations are made, or it may continue to be re-enforced.

Edited January 19, 2019 by beecee

[Mordred]

4 hours ago, beecee said:

 

No, it is exactly that...unsupported speculation. If I had a dollar for every "would be if he could be" that claimed he had some new "theory" that debunked a supported incumbent model, I would be a rich man.

 

I lost count long ago on how many posts I've seen claim their model as fact. The most annoying part is that physics itself never claims any theory as fact. They only claim to the best of our current understanding.

5 hours ago, MigL said:

So, that original point ( at time t=0 ), which was then surrounded by 26 points  ( at time t=1 unit ) is the center of the universe ?
That's what Mordred is saying doesn't match observational evidence. 

I'm actually going to use the OP's pixel descriptive to provide an accurate analogy to explain what the observational evidence of expansion supports in terms of the Cosmological Principle. 

First step lets define a Pixel as simply a geometric volume (amount of space with a given unit of measure). Lets set an arbritary value that each Pixel represents 1cubic parsec which is a standard unit under cosmology.

 Lets then set the number of Pixels as [latex] 10^10[/latex] on each coordinate axis. ( completely arbitrary numbers...).

Now then this represents the size of the universe as we measure it today. Now instead of changing the number of Pixels. (keep the number precisely the same) simply decrease the size of each Pixel as you approach T=0 backwards in time. Do not change the coordinate location of any Pixel on graph but simply recognize that the volume of each Pixel is decreasing in length scale on the X, Y,Z coordinate axis.

 Now this will represent a Homogeneous and Isotropic expansion that has no preferred direction or origin point (preferred location) If you pick any number of arbritary pixel. The angles will not change between any two or more Pixels. This is what we observe with expansion, a changing volume THAT DOES NOT CHANGE THE ANGLE between any number of reference points.

An expansion of a volume that radiates outward from a central point will not preserve the angle between reference points and the way the angles change will provide a point of origin.

Now take this a step further within each Pixel we have N number of particles that are interfering with each other. They are doing so in random directions where the average direction sums to zero. No preferred direction of the pixel volume of gas, Much like Brownian motion. It would be a natural consequence that this type of multi-particle interaction will naturally lead to an expansion of that gas. The tendency for particles to remain bound to one another will fight this volume change ie if the binding potential exceeds the average motion of the gas, then the volume will collapse.

 Now lets define the binding potential energy as gravity and this can be described as the gravitational field potential energy. The particle motion of matter as the kinetic energy term. We have no referred location according to observation so we can then describe this as a charge-less scalar field. A charge is a vector quantity.

Why surprise surprise we already have a formula that describes this. see the scalar field model formula on this link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)

Please note that I just described how a matter only universe without dark energy or radiation can expand or contract while preserving a homogeneous and isotropic expansion with no preferred direction that also correlates to zero pressure per mass density. equation of state w=0. As per the link above...

 

Edited January 20, 2019 by Mordred

[810]

On 1/19/2019 at 1:22 PM, Mordred said:

Ok last response confirms that you have an inhomogeneous expansion ( a preferred directional component) with expansion radiating outward from a central point. I can promise you that this will not match any observational evidence of how expansion occurs.

That is how the first moments were.  Once there were enough dots releasing their own energy waves from all directions, a more familiar model of expansion takes over.  Whether all dots separated at the same time, or progressed outward at a constant or changing rate, the point of my model remains the same, dark energy is the continued addition of space by means of the energy waves released by stars.

 

On 1/19/2019 at 1:25 PM, Phi for All said:

We can't know anything trustworthy from this time, but we do know that the kind of extreme densities involved also involve extreme heat.

During moment 000, heat potential was present, but heat could not technically exist due to there not being any dimension for heat to function as transferable energy such as atomic movement.  Due to the lack of movement, the super singularity was absolute zero, literally the only point at which absolute zero can exist.  Absolute zero can only exist at moment 000.

On 1/19/2019 at 1:25 PM, Phi for All said:

IIRC, light didn't have enough room to travel until about 400,000 years after expansion began. Mordred can confirm.

This is a very good point.  The density of the dots would have been insane.  Way more dense than, but similar to a star.  The energy released from friction, and fusion, can keep light waves contained within a star for a long time.  What many do not understand or think about is that, light waves created from within a star, are absorbed,converted, and re-emitted over and over, in a way bouncing around within the star, so the version that finally escapes into space is not the same as when it was first generated.  This means that light may not have been able to travel early on, like it does today, but it was still generated in huge amounts.

On 1/19/2019 at 1:31 PM, Mordred said:

Correct the mean free particle path of the photon prior to the surface of last scattering (CMB) due to the opacity of free electrons prior to stable formation of atoms is roughly 10−33 metres. Once stable atoms formed the mean free path of photons becomes infinite in possible extend.

I don't quite understand that last part, "infinite in possible extend."  If that math is correct, do we both agree that light was being generated?

On 1/19/2019 at 1:31 PM, Mordred said:

Space is a term that literally means the amount of volume. Look up the definition of space. Space is not a medium.

I understand the definition, and if my model is correct, the definition of "space" would not change.  Does a water transporter not calculate the volume of water needed to be delivered?  If all oranges began talking, they would still be called oranges.  Space is a medium of waves.  I am not asking you to believe me, I am asking you to envision what I am saying without the reservations of webster's dictionary being placed at my feet.  I personally would not use a word unless I understood it's true nature.  I am the new guy, the dude surrounded by flat Earthers.  I need someone to provide a formula that shows the relation between the amount/rate of matter that has been converted to energy *WITH* the amount/rate of space inflation/expansion.  That alone will prove my theory correct.  I am not anyone special, just want to help the world any way I can.

On 1/19/2019 at 1:31 PM, Mordred said:

Motion is not a requirement of time. I can measure the amount of time a rock stays a rock without changing its composition or location.

That rock is in a moving universe.  The time piece that is used to measure the time is moving.  You missed the main point, which was if "ALL" motion stopped, like it was in moment 000, in which time did not exist, or could be considered as froze, absolute zero.

On 1/19/2019 at 1:31 PM, Mordred said:

Energy is not a fabric or any other form of substance. It is a property of any field, object etc to perform work. Ignoring the proper physics definitions will not allow your model to progress far.

At no point have I ignored the definitions.  You translated my currently unpopular scenario into me not being well versed in the terminology, and that is not fair.  Agreed, wave energy/space is not a fabric, but "fabric" is an accepted way to depict space, much like "volume", "matrix", "reservoir", "collection", or "pool".  Can we please move past the stage of nitpicking the new guys method of conveyance and get to the fun stuff?

On 1/19/2019 at 1:51 PM, MigL said:

So, that original point ( at time t=0 ), which was then surrounded by 26 points  ( at time t=1 unit ) is the center of the universe ?
That's what Mordred is saying doesn't match observational evidence.

I am so glad to be conversing with actual science guys.  I can tell you are actually paying attention and can grasp my model.  Firstly, my apologies if I confused "point" with "dot".  I only mean to use "point" when referring to the single point occupied by the super singularity.  "Dots" is what I call the individual pieces of the singularity in the simple 27 dot model.  Ok, my theory could have went down in two ways.

A) The super singularity of all of the universes insane amount of dots began seperating from eachother at the same time while moving outward like an explosion.  This would result in little or nothing being left at ground zero.

B) Dots were released from the super singularity at an uncertain rate, likely due to a lack of room, much like the situation light was facing early on.

-sub-Ba) Singularity eventually evaporated most of it's dots, perhaps with some left behind in a left over black hole.

-sub-Bb) Singularity is still evaporating dots to this day.

Each would result in matter coalescing into what we see today.  I believe that the universal center has familiar objects, but a great deal less.  The reason being is because all of the dots were moving away from ground zero, but enough time has passed for black holes and galaxies to have ended up passing through, and perhaps there is a smaller super singularity of dots still at ground zero, beginning to pull in some of the already released dots nearest to it.  Perhaps this will lead to a big crunch.  If matter and energy gets pulled back in, this would create a siphon effect and a percentage, if not all of the universe will fall back into a next generation super singularity.  This may be the reason for the great attractor or super voids.  Once the math to my theory is processed, the universal center, (ground zero), will be pinpointed.

On 1/19/2019 at 1:51 PM, MigL said:

Also you keep comparing space to a pond.

In a pond, water 'waves' to transfer energy from one point to another.
What exactly waves in 3D space, or a simple volume ? 

This is why not accepting that space is energy waves will only serve to hinder ones ability to grasp what I am explaining.

Moment 000 - No space, so no dimension.  All dots occupy the same single point.  The point is not round, it lacks shape, it simply just is.  There is nothing surrounding this point.

Moment 001 - The first dots have moved outward in the first ever frame of time.  The space that has come into existence between the dots, are the first energy waves that each dot has released, the first waves in the universe ever.  Waves exert a pressure, loosely similar to a compression wave.  That pressure is why space appears to be a vacuum, instead of coalescing into something similar like a gas cloud with larger bits and pieces.  So each wave moving away from each dot, overlaps the wave that is moving away from a neighboring dot.  The reason light speed is at a fixed rate is because it is sorta throttled by how long it takes for one dot of space to transfer wave energy to a neighboring dot, the smallest, most common denominator of time, aka one frame.  The universe works in ticks, however, the ticks of the universe are so short, that humans could never develop the means to make such small measurements, similar to how we will never see the universes individual dots.  As far as we are concerned, the dots and frames are so small that it all acts like a fluid, no matter how close we examine it.

 

23 hours ago, beecee said:

The reason why space expands, we are not really sure, but that same expansion can be "nullified" by local regions of high mass/energy densities and the resultant gravity.

The expansion would not be negated due to gravity wells, it simply happens less in them areas.  Regions of space with lots of gravity wells with little energy waves being emitted by stars, expands less because there is very little around to emit energy waves, which is space.

23 hours ago, beecee said:

Wrong again...the universe was opaque for at least around 385,000 years after the BB due to the  the scattering of photons before recombination, and until temperatures had dropped far enough to enable electrons to couple with atomic nuclei. Expansion slowed and continue to slow up until around 5 billion years ago, as a result of mass/energy densities of the then universe. As that mass/energy density lessened with continued expansion, acceleration in that expansion became evident, except for isolated regions of high mass/energy densities such as our local group of galaxies. The impetus behind the continuing acceleration is unknown and is what we determine as DE.

How exactly was I wrong?  I said, "Then when the universe cooled and went dark, expansion slowed.", which is what you basically just said, """Expansion slowed and continue to slow up until around 5 billion years ago""".  Nothing like being told you are wrong, then said person repeats what you already stated, only more detailed.  This is called straw man tactics.  "DE" dark energy is literally what my theory explains.  Dark energy is the energy being emitted into space by objects such as stars.  Energy waves is space.  Space is made up of energy waves moving in all directions.

23 hours ago, beecee said:

Not at all. When Einstein first formulated GR, the prevailing thought at that time was that the universe was static...no mention of time stopping at all. Time more accurately is simply the intervals between sequential events. Both time and space of course also depends on one's frame of reference.

"""Not at all.""" Really?  I said, "Motion is the strict requirement for time to pass. "  So if everything in the universe stopped moving, including chemical and nuclear reactions and atomic movement, time is still ticking?  Pulsars are not doing anything, neither are watches.  All external and internal viewers can no longer "view" because their instruments, and their own bodies are no longer doing anything in order to detect anything.  In this situation, there is absolute zero, and time has froze.  If it continued to be froze, time would not exist.  Moment 000 was absolute zero, even though all of the potential of the universe was located in one single point.  """Time more accurately is simply the intervals between sequential events."""  Oi!  I can't wait for you all to stop quoting me webster's.  I totally understand A to B.  Because my model is unpopular, I must not dun much of dat book learnin diddnt I?

23 hours ago, beecee said:

Most Physicists today do not accept that singularities exist, [super duper or otherwise] other then as defined by where our laws of physics and GR do not apply. That is the quantum/Planck level.

Where did you get that from?  Most physicists believe for a fact that singularities exist.  A dense clump of matter trapped within a gravity well is a must for a universe with space exerting force on matter from all directions.  There comes a point when, if there is enough matter located in one clump, there is also enough space surrounding it that space can push harder per square inch and condense the matter into a much smaller, and compact super fluid like state.

23 hours ago, beecee said:

No, it is exactly that...unsupported speculation. If I had a dollar for every "would be if he could be" that claimed he had some new "theory" that debunked a supported incumbent model, I would be a rich man.

To everyone else, this is speculation, but I know it is true because I can see it work in my head beautifully.  The only aspect of my model that seems unorthodox is that energy waves are what space is constructed of.  Energy waves are the dark energy.  Everything else in the standard way of thinking remains untouched.  Math and physics would not need to be altered much if this model became a standard.  This theory does not "debunk" anything, and was never the intention.  This simply explains the nature of inflation, expansion, and dark energy.  All three explained in a simple way without detracting from the modern model, only filling a gap.  Once one of you does the math, and it looks promising, we will finally have dark energy solved, and each of you will have played a role.  I appreciate all of you for tossing questions at me, some which I had yet to consider.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, 810 said:

Moment 000 - No space, so no dimension.  All dots occupy the same single point.  The point is not round, it lacks shape, it simply just is.  There is nothing surrounding this point.

We know nothing of the moment of the BB. In fact the BB is simply the overwhelmingly supported model of space and time evolving from t=10-43 seconds. 

Quote

The expansion would not be negated due to gravity wells, it simply happens less in them areas.  Regions of space with lots of gravity wells with little energy waves being emitted by stars, expands less because there is very little around to emit energy waves, which is space.

What expansion of space do you envisage within our own local group of galaxies? M31 for example shows a blue shift because it is moving towards us. Please show me how any space expansion is occurring if we observe it moving towards us? 

Again, regions of heavy mass/energy densities, has the effects of gravity overcoming, or decoupling us from the overall large scale expansion of space.

Quote

How exactly was I wrong?  I said, "Then when the universe cooled and went dark, expansion slowed.", which is what you basically just said, """Expansion slowed and continue to slow up until around 5 billion years ago""".  Nothing like being told you are wrong, then said person repeats what you already stated, only more detailed.  This is called straw man tactics.

Because the universe was always opaque until around 385,000 years post BB, or until temperatures had fallen sufficiently to enable electron coupling to atomic nuclei. No "went dark"  at all.

 

Quote

"DE" dark energy is literally what my theory explains.  Dark energy is the energy being emitted into space by objects such as stars.  Energy waves is space.  Space is made up of energy waves moving in all directions.

No, DE is not being emitted by stars of any sort. DE is simply what is causing space to expand, and the universe to be getting bigger, and is acting in opposition to gravity. Stars of course do cause spacetime curvature and as a result gravity, which acts in opposition to DE.

Quote

"""Not at all.""" Really?  I said, "Motion is the strict requirement for time to pass. "  So if everything in the universe stopped moving, including chemical and nuclear reactions and atomic movement, time is still ticking?  Pulsars are not doing anything, neither are watches.  All external and internal viewers can no longer "view" because their instruments, and their own bodies are no longer doing anything in order to detect anything.  In this situation, there is absolute zero, and time has froze.  If it continued to be froze, time would not exist.  Moment 000 was absolute zero, even though all of the potential of the universe was located in one single point.  """Time more accurately is simply the intervals between sequential events."""  Oi!  I can't wait for you all to stop quoting me webster's.  I totally understand A to B.  Because my model is unpopular, I must not dun much of dat book learnin diddnt I?

The question of time is more philosophical then scientific. But what we do know tells us that time will always pass, and that motion [which you seem obsessed with as others do] is just a change in position, with respect to the passing of time. And again, we know nothing of moment 000, or even 0.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAScJvxCy2Y

In relation to your other rhetoric, let me quote one of the greats...."I see as far as I do, because I stand on the shoulders of giants"

Quote

 Where did you get that from?  Most physicists believe for a fact that singularities exist. 

I suggest you do some research. Any physical singularity, involves infinities, such as infinite spacetime curvature [BH's and infinite densities [BH's and the BB] and as a result most reputable physicists abhore such singularities and reject such absurdities. The singularities so often defined, are simply singularities where our current laws of physics and GR cannot be applied...such as the center of BH's and the moment of the BB, or the quantum/Planck levels in which they occupy. What that then suggests is a surface of sorts, that we are unable to define, should exist at those levels. But that is admittedly speculative.

Quote

To everyone else, this is speculation, but I know it is true because I can see it work in my head beautifully. 

I have yet to meet any Mother, that did not believe her own child was the most adorable.

Edited January 20, 2019 by beecee

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, 810 said:

 

 

 

  Can we please move past the stage of nitpicking the new guys method of conveyance and get to the fun stuff?

 

 

Let me point out a simple detail. I will always stress proper terminology and correct misconceptions in any post regardless of how long a poster has been a member. I would do so even if that poster is a PH.D. It is fun to toy model however there are rules required by this forum when doing so. See the guidelines on the pinned threads at thee top of the Speculation forum page.

 Your model still does not address the problems I mentioned even with the added descriptives. The simple fact is that you have a preferred direction to expansion/inflation. This does not match observational evidence, with which is in very strong agreement as to its accuracy in the professional scientific community. This evidence is supported by the Planck CMB datasets.

Now one aspect you completely missed is the formula I provided does precisely what you were looking for (its also the formula that the majority of all inflationary theories work from) It does correlate how a mass/energy field can expand or contract.

However it still won't do you much good as you have not shown any means of defining what a dot or a pixel is in terms of mass/energy etc. You haven't mathematically defined either object. 

You can find numerous variations of that formula throughout this article detailing studies on inflation and the comparisons to observational evidence of the major different inflationary models.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3787

Edited January 20, 2019 by Mordred

[beecee]

1 hour ago, 810 said:

A dense clump of matter trapped within a gravity well is a must for a universe with space exerting force on matter from all directions.  There comes a point when, if there is enough matter located in one clump, there is also enough space surrounding it that space can push harder per square inch and condense the matter into a much smaller, and compact super fluid like state.

I missed that.  Firstly, matter is not trapped within any gravity well...Matter simply alters the geometry of spacetime, and we feel that geometrical alteration/curvature as gravity. The matter [eg a star] can move through spacetime and in doing so, is continually altering the regions of spacetime as it goes. Secondly, Space is not pushing, it simply exists, and is expanding over large scales. Light of course simply follows geodesics in spacetime, and explains the effects of gravitational lensing and such that we observe.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, 810 said:

To everyone else, this is speculation, but I know it is true because I can see it work in my head beautifully.  

Do you know why? Because you only worked with what you knew, which was limited, and you filled the rest in so it made perfect sense (but only to you).

2 hours ago, 810 said:

The only aspect of my model that seems unorthodox is that energy waves are what space is constructed of. 

Earlier in this same post, you said:

2 hours ago, 810 said:

I understand the definition, and if my model is correct, the definition of "space" would not change. 

Asserting that space is made of waves is completely changing the definition. You can see that, right?

2 hours ago, 810 said:

Energy waves are the dark energy.  Everything else in the standard way of thinking remains untouched.

But that's not what we observe. Dark energy is called dark because it doesn't interact electromagnetically.

2 hours ago, 810 said:

I appreciate all of you for tossing questions at me, some which I had yet to consider.

The big question is, given the new information you have now regarding where your idea conflicts with observation, what aspects will you change? I personally feel your misconceptions about what space is is at the heart of the problem. 

 

[MigL]

OK, I didn't mis-understand, and you haven't clarified anything.
You are saying there is a center to the universe, and it exploded outward.
I guess we'll just throw all observational evidence out the window.

Space is energy waves ?
Water is what waves in a pond to transfer energy.
What waves in space to transfer energy ?

The expansion is only evident in places which are far from radiating stars/matter.
IE not gravitationally bound.
So how can radiation pressure ( energy waves ? ) be responsible for expansion ?

Current understanding has none of these problems.

[810]

15 hours ago, beecee said:

We know nothing of the moment of the BB. In fact the BB is simply the overwhelmingly supported model of space and time evolving from t=10-43 seconds.

What expansion of space do you envisage within our own local group of galaxies? M31 for example shows a blue shift because it is moving towards us. Please show me how any space expansion is occurring if we observe it moving towards us? 

Again, regions of heavy mass/energy densities, has the effects of gravity overcoming, or decoupling us from the overall large scale expansion of space.

Because the universe was always opaque until around 385,000 years post BB, or until temperatures had fallen sufficiently to enable electron coupling to atomic nuclei. No "went dark"  at all.

Actually, the BB is the same mechanism as inflation/expansion.  However, naming an era of the inflation with the moniker BB seems reasonable.

Within our local group, the distance between heavenly bodies causes gravity wells to have a greater effect than inflation.  At such small distances, there is not enough energy waves being sent out by said heavenly bodies to slow the gravitational attraction.  Blue/red shifts would still take place normally.  """Please show me how any space expansion is occurring if we observe it moving towards us?"""  The gravitational attraction of the local group is way larger than the inflation taking place between them, so the inflation would not be noticed until proper math is used.  """gain, regions of heavy mass/energy densities, has the effects of gravity overcoming, or decoupling us from the overall large scale expansion of space."""  Totally agree!  Literally what I just stated.  It is possible that the initial light was being reabsorbed early on, which would result in little to no light waves being sent out.  When I say "went dark"  I do not mean totally dark, I mean darker than it was.  How can you claim that there was no "went dark" era, when it has been shown to be true?

15 hours ago, beecee said:

No, DE is not being emitted by stars of any sort. DE is simply what is causing space to expand, and the universe to be getting bigger, and is acting in opposition to gravity. Stars of course do cause spacetime curvature and as a result gravity, which acts in opposition to DE.

The question of time is more philosophical then scientific. But what we do know tells us that time will always pass, and that motion [which you seem obsessed with as others do] is just a change in position, with respect to the passing of time. And again, we know nothing of moment 000, or even 0.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAScJvxCy2Y

In relation to your other rhetoric, let me quote one of the greats...."I see as far as I do, because I stand on the shoulders of giants"

I suggest you do some research. Any physical singularity, involves infinities, such as infinite spacetime curvature [BH's and infinite densities [BH's and the BB] and as a result most reputable physicists abhore such singularities and reject such absurdities. The singularities so often defined, are simply singularities where our current laws of physics and GR cannot be applied...such as the center of BH's and the moment of the BB, or the quantum/Planck levels in which they occupy. What that then suggests is a surface of sorts, that we are unable to define, should exist at those levels. But that is admittedly speculative.

I have yet to meet any Mother, that did not believe her own child was the most adorable.

"""No, DE is not being emitted by stars of any sort."""  Can you provide another ongoing process in the universe that is evenly distributed, and powerful enough to account for DE, other than stars?  """DE is simply what is causing space to expand""", correct, and I have actually proposed a logical solution as to what DE is.  """000, or even 0"""  I use "000" because it matches all moments of of to 999 nicely in a list.  It is a way to avoid confusion.  I do not believe in infinite, except for perhaps pertaining to the super singularity at moment 000.  Infinity is absurd to me.  A black hole is simply dense matter at the center, there is nothing special happening with a black hole, and it does not have any infinite properties.


 

15 hours ago, Mordred said:

However it still won't do you much good as you have not shown any means of defining what a dot or a pixel is in terms of mass/energy etc. You haven't mathematically defined either object. 

You can find numerous variations of that formula throughout this article detailing studies on inflation and the comparisons to observational evidence of the major different inflationary models.

A dot is the single most common denominator of the universe.  The number of dots is not infinite, but a larger number than we could describe.  In order for energy and matter to be able to interact and exist, there must be a medium to move about and interact within.  Energy waves are transferred from dot to dot, which is why the speed of light is throttled.  Light can only move as fast as the time it takes for one dot to transfer it's energy to another.  Energy is the wave, matter is the rock.  I have admitted early on that my math skills are lacking, so a mathematical descriptive for a dot could not be provided by myself.  Actually, due to a dot being the smallest denominator, we will never be able to detect them with machines, which are an insane amount of factors larger in scale.  The only way to detect something, is to bounce energy off it and see how the energy that came back was changed, but a dot could never be reached in such manner.

15 hours ago, beecee said:

I missed that.  Firstly, matter is not trapped within any gravity well...Matter simply alters the geometry of spacetime, and we feel that geometrical alteration/curvature as gravity. The matter [eg a star] can move through spacetime and in doing so, is continually altering the regions of spacetime as it goes. Secondly, Space is not pushing, it simply exists, and is expanding over large scales. Light of course simply follows geodesics in spacetime, and explains the effects of gravitational lensing and such that we observe.

Do you think we are pulled to the Earth, vs pushed to the Earth via space?  Imagine a marble inside a loaf of bread.  Then imagine yourself appearing on the surface of the marble.  The bread near you is now pushing you to the marble, and the marble has force exerted onto it from all directions via the bread.

15 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Asserting that space is made of waves is completely changing the definition. You can see that, right?

But that's not what we observe. Dark energy is called dark because it doesn't interact electromagnetically.

The big question is, given the new information you have now regarding where your idea conflicts with observation, what aspects will you change? I personally feel your misconceptions about what space is is at the heart of the problem.

If I am correct, people would still say "There is not enough space in the car for another person".  The definition of space would not change, even though I claim that space is overlapping energy waves, it is still a void from our human perspective.  Just because the nature of space is understood, does not mean the usage of the word would change.  I would love to make changes, like before, I don't know how the super singularity broke apart, or if it is still doing it's thing or if there is a void where it once was.  I could be wrong about everything else.  The one thing I am certain of is that there is only one ongoing process in the universe that can account for continued inflation, and that is the energy being released by not just the galaxies of stars, but also pulsars and nebula.  I love to admit when I am wrong, it means I learned something.  I believe DE is the energy released by heavenly bodies which is space itself.

[Mordred]

What size ,volume, mass, energy does this dot possess? That is what I mean by mathematically defining a dot. What forms the dot ? What is it comprised of Pixie dust?

[810]

15 hours ago, MigL said:

OK, I didn't mis-understand, and you haven't clarified anything.
You are saying there is a center to the universe, and it exploded outward.
I guess we'll just throw all observational evidence out the window.

Space is energy waves ?
Water is what waves in a pond to transfer energy.
What waves in space to transfer energy ?

The expansion is only evident in places which are far from radiating stars/matter.
IE not gravitationally bound.
So how can radiation pressure ( energy waves ? ) be responsible for expansion ?

Current understanding has none of these problems.

Yes there is a center.  How does that screw with observed truths?  The end result of my scenario results in what we see today, which is a bunch of heavenly bodies continuing to move away from each other, unless they are close enough for gravity to attract them.  I believe the universe is made up of the single most common denominator, aka a bunch of "dots".  Much like water molecules transfer energy among each other, electromagnetism is transferred through space via the dots. 

"""So how can radiation pressure ( energy waves ? ) be responsible for expansion ?"""

The more energy being released into space, the more space there is.  As energy is added, there is a compression wave of sorts that becomes more diluted the further away it travels.  I will go into more detail in a little while.

10 minutes ago, Mordred said:

What size ,volume, mass, energy does this dot possess? That is what I mean by mathematically defining a dot. What forms the dot ? What is it comprised of Pixie dust?

We will never know the size, of the dots, but they lack their own volume, and mass.  The energy the dots possess would be similar to the energy water molecules experience from a wave.  Nothing can form a dot.  I believe the same amount of dots exist today as in moment 001.

Edited January 21, 2019 by 810