Universal Evolutionary Process

[Questing]

Imagine the difficulty biological scientists would have understanding biology in this day and age, if we were still in a time pre-Darwinian evolution? Can you see how biologist would suffer in much the same way that current day physicists and cosmologists are? Interesting!

Here's another way to look at it. Physics and cosmology are suffering a glaringly obvious problem, no adequate answer for a highly fine tuned, complex, ordered physical universe. And I for one, do not believe designer is the solution, and nor chance. So what other options are there?

Well we are already well aware of a process of nature, that allows wondrous complexity to arise within systems. Evolutionary process. The big bang theory doesn't allow opportunity for evolutionary process to work its magic. However does big bang disprove universal evolutionary process, or does universal evolutionary process disprove big bang?

I know this seams silly. Rocks aren't alive right!

However there is a plausible possibility, and its quite simple. And appears to fit universal observations better than one might expect. Here is the simplest possible telling.

A field welling up in space, exploiting a natural energy potential of the vacuum (red shifting photons). but rather than expanding the universe as a whole, it is this energy which is being reabsorbed by matter, and provides an intuitive explanation for cause for gravity. This scenario allows the field to undergo generational exchange, necessary for evolutionary process.

Our impression of electricity in the macro world, is that it is of a fleeting nature. Stop winding the alternator crank and it vanishes. But despite this, our particle physics theory's consider electric fields to be a conserved value, an extension of energy conservation laws. However what if this is a misinterpretation, and particles continually place load on the field to generate electricity, for the specific reason of clearing field energy, allowing for generational exchange?

And then it might be presumed that this is a reason for emergence of the physical universe in the first instance. A progressive evolutionary strategy of an evolving field.

This is a really fun concept, and achieves a great deal more than this brief account first makes apparent.

This thread is a condensed version of a discussion recently held at Cosmoquest, which generated a reasonable amount of interest. Clocking up 14000 views in the eleven days following Christmas, and I hope will be like wise of interest to this forum community.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?159257-Universal-Evolutionary-Process

Stuart Clark
Some recommended reading to get people in frame of mind. Although you’ll need to be a subscriber to new scientist magazine.
The following New Scientist magazine article, "Sacrificing Einstein", and written by Stuart Clark.
http://www.stuartclark.com/astronomy...icing-einstein

I have always been captivated by force of Gravity, ever since a child. However a few years ago it was this article, which provided the perspective I needed to get a handle on the puzzle of inertial mass. This was a turning point and I owe a debt of gratitude to Stuart. My favourite article of all time.

Doesn’t help to deny the problem
There are those who, because they cannot see an avenue past the problem of universal fine tuning, have chosen to ignore it. Denial so they might achieve peace of mind perhaps, because it just seems so frustratingly intractable. And perhaps might never be answered, so why lose sleep over it. However the fine tuning issue really is an interesting problem for Standard Model of Particle Physics and Standard Model of Cosmology and General Relativity as well for that matter. And a good measure of this is the extreme nature of speculations required to try to fix the issue. The multiverse for example is born of trying to answer to this problem, a rather dramatic and evident-less speculation. Roll the dice enough times, the intricate nature of the universe and physical laws coming down to chance.

And it provides a seemingly rational argument for existence of a creator, and Theist's have been making the very most of it. And it is not for lack of science advocates trying to shut them down on the subject, however science really has had difficulty answering to this issue of a fine tuned physical universe.

In any case, cant want for too many perspectives. So I'll present a new angle from which to view this problem from.

Field Emergence
Lets speculate that our little patch of the universe was once truly empty. Assuming a single quantum of field then emerged, and in its most simple primitive form. Analogous to emergence of life, it only needs a natural energy potential to exploit, perhaps the vacuum of space provides it. And the ability to self-replicate.

So this being achieved, the field slowly begins its colonization of the apparently endless expanse of empty space. Each time it replicates represents an opportunity for generational change, which allows possibility for improvement, adaptation and evolutionary progression. Field which has inherited a more efficient ability to exploit the energy resource, and replicate faster, is the first to arrive at virgin unexploited habitat surrounding the fields place of emergence. So these adaptations prosper.

There comes a time when there are parts of the field separated by great distances of space. So as they continue to progressively change and adapt, they will experience evolutionary drift, and achieve divergence of species. If at some time in the future, they should again find themselves at close quarters with one another, they might find themselves experiencing competition for habitat and resource. If so, it is conceivable that the field best able to overwhelm its competitor will win out. Most efficient, fastest to preliterate, fastest to adapt, most energetic etc.

However, under these circumstances a field that wins the struggle for habitat and resource becomes a victim of its own success. An immortal field will saturate its habitat, and having perhaps placed an overwhelming demand on a rationed energy resource, its rate of proliferation might flounder, which slows generational exchange, in tern stalling adaptation and evolutionary progression. Picture if life on Earth as immortal?

Under this circumstance, an evolving field has every motive to retain adaptations for clearing prior generations of itself, and enable generational exchange. Continual emergence, regeneration, adaptation and evolutionary progression. If the material universe (matter) kills off the field, then this might be precisely the reason why the material universe emerged.

And it gets better than this. I can give you a rather interesting prediction

I will quickly take this conversation toward a reason, implicated in structure of the physical universe on all scales, the structure of particles, composite atoms, planets, stars, galaxy and galaxy group.

Black Hole Fecundity
There is another line of speculation along the lines of universal natural selection, which implicates black holes with a process of universal fecundity. It’s based on the premise that universes best suited to creating black holes will create greater numbers of progeny, and perpetuate it’s like kind. However the problem with this theory is the universe will have created a great many more black holes if stars didn’t burn, supporting them from gravitational collapse. And likewise, if atoms contained less internal space than they do, (being 100,000 parts space to one part nucleon), then too you might generate more black holes. So assuming the universe we see around us today is the product of evolutionary progression, and that for the most part adaptations which benefit the evolving entity are retained. Then it seems the universe has developed some rather intricate structures and processes of particles, atomic, and stellar which appear to directly oppose material collapse to form black holes. This line of reasoning indicates the universe has adopted tactics of inflating the material universe and reducing numbers of pulsars and black holes.

This is an argument against black hole fecundity, however is not an arguing against a Darwinian Universal system in general.

General Theme
So far I have outlined the general theme.

I do have speculations about the nature of the field, and mechanisms for its evolution, the energy potential of the vacuum and the tactic of the field which enables the vacuum to be exploited. And they are about as well formulated in my mind, as Charles Darwin’s early speculations. Which is to say, interesting but primitive. But you require a substantial reason to entertain these less definitive speculations, and so that is what I will attempt to do first.

I don’t have the mathematical proof, and so am limited to intuitive descriptions of proportions and comparisons. Less than ideal I know, however I will provide diagrams soon which will help to visualize my explanations. I’ll need to collaborate with those who have the data sets, and ability to calculate them before we’ll have proof of refute.

Diracs large numbers hypothesis
This model suggests a remarkable parallel between emergence and evolution of life, and emergence and evolution of the universe. Infact its fair to say that there is really nothing separating the two processes, and life is simple a continuation of a broader overall universal evolutionary process.

Here’s something fun to think about…….

Paul Dirac made the observation that atomic electric charge is tremendously stronger than gravity, and a ratio between the two is sum 40 orders of magnitude. And the same apparent ratio, 40 orders of magnitude, is observed between expansion rate of space, (a measure of photon universal red shift), and the sum total value of all estimated atomic charges combined.

Summarizing, the same strength ratio as found between atomic charge and gravity, is the same ratio found between universal expansion rate (per red shift), and sum total atomic charges combined.

So the expansion rate of the universe is determined by measuring red shift from distant galaxies, which Dirac and others interpret as universal expansion, which they further extrapolate to an age of the universe. Then they ask, why is there a correlation between age of the universe and atomic charge? And if they inferred a wrong assumption along the way, (big bang) will forever be scratching their heads.

It makes a simple kind of sense, if there is a regenerative field in space, ( red shifting photons), however rather than expanding the universe as a whole, the field is being consumed by mass in the process of generating charge.

Under this circumstance, there is no mystery as to the relation between red shift of photons and universal atomic charges. It’s a direct causal link, not removed by a degree of separation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_...ers_hypothesis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o8mUyq_Wwg

Large Numbers Hypothesis continued
Dirac felt it was an unlikely coincidence, and that there is a connection between the two ratios. However that's just his intuitive thinking, because he couldn't uncover the link. But if anybody's intuition is worth something, its his. But its easy to see where he might have gone wrong. He inferred a couple of things based on the standard model of cosmology "big bang" and rather than recognizing a natural connection between a regenerative field in space and atomic charge, he ended up trying to understand a link between age of the universe and atomic charge. I'm simply pointing out, that if my theory is correct, then the link between the ratios is straight forward. Interesting at the very least.

Overwhelming evidence for big bang, some do say. To make it work you need universal inflation theory, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, which so far standard models present no physics, are unknowns and undetected. Pavel Kroupa is tearing strips off standard cosmological theory, and its prediction for dark matter particle and galaxy formation etc. This vid goes for over an hour, but well worth a watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPVGDXNSBZM

My theory has a different way of handling the universal observables, which leads to a simpler model that fits together in a natural way.

Relationship Shared Between Mass and Space
A simplest summation of General Relativity, (mass informs space how to curve, space informs mass how to move). However does this capture all aspects of the relationship shared between space and mass? Does this neglect an important dynamic, that might otherwise provide simple explanation for anomalous galaxy motions?

If there is a regenerative field in space, which is consumed by mass in the process of generating electric fields, then this does inform us of something important. It informs us that field energy density is variable, and that electric fields maybe variable and proportional to available space field energy.

Fire shares this same proportion with oxygen availability, in turn fire reduces its own potential to burn, by lowering local oxygen density. This can be visualized by placing a candle in a container with restricted air flow. Under this circumstance, not only does a candle flame lower its own potential to burn, but every additional candle has a multiplying effect, lowering its own potential, as well as each other’s. Add many and individual candles will barely burn at all, oxygen density having fallen so low.

(note, the container is required to restrict oxygen availability in this analogy, because the field of space is assumed to propagate at a single velocity. So its availability is likewise restricted)

Assuming an analogous relationship between flame and oxygen, space field and atomic electric fields, and that a particles electric field shares a proportion to its mass. Protons and Neutrons will have a greater mass at galaxy rim, where space field energy density is higher. As you move toward galaxy centre, field energy density will steadily decline, and mass will decline proportionately.

In the same respect that the candle oxygen relationship is intuitive and easy to visualize, but constructing the mathematical description is difficult. The space field, electric field and mass relationship is equally intuitive and easy to visualize, however equally difficult to build the mathematical model. I’ll leave that to somebody who holds the data set, and skills to calculate.

Contemplating this for the first time, it might seem absurd. But that’s only until you see how well it fits the various constraints applied to dark matter cosmology. It’s an easy natural fit like no other.

Cusp Core Problem
General Relativity and dark matter theories over predict mass and stellar velocities galaxy centre.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuspy_halo_problem

Galaxy Rotation Curves
General relativity under predicts mass and stellar velocities throughout galaxy disk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve

Dark Matter in Groups of Galaxies
This is where Dark Matter theories perform well, however this is where MOND runs into trouble.
http://astrobites.org/2013/10/09/dark-in-the-lightness/

Void negative lensing
Dark matter theory and General relativity really have no answer to this characteristic of voids.
https://www.thunderbolts.info/.../04/28/weighing-the-void/

Lopsided galaxy rotation curves.
I haven’t stumbled upon a description of which side of the galaxy rotates faster, in relation to its local galaxy group. But I’m guessing it will be the side of the galaxy furthest from the galaxy group.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0207055

Tully Fisher relation
light to mass ratio. Turns out that all along, the mass wasn’t hidden from our eye’s. Only hidden from our minds and theories. There is a relation between luminosity and mass, because anomalous mass is incorporated within stars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tully%E2%80%93Fisher_relation

MOND Modified Newtonian Dynamics
MOND represents a subtle and systematic modification to gravity, and performs with better predictive ability of galaxy rotation curves than Dark Matter models. My variable field mass theory provides a contrast, and shows us precisely why MOND performed so well, without it actually being correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics

Textured Galaxy rotation curves
Galaxy rotation curves are not smooth and uniformed throughout their arch as dark matter models predict. A large dominating mass encapsulating the entire galaxy should create a smooth gravitational potential, averaged across large areas of the galaxy disk. Rather, textured variable rotation curves indicate stars are responding to more localized influences. A problem for Dark matter halo theory.

No one theory has answered succinctly to all of the above constraints, and dark matter particles proposed to do so have become increasingly exotic and unlikely as observational constraints have tightened. However the field theory I present fits in a simple and perfectly natural way.

You simply account for field energy density, and its proportionality to mass. It provides a smooth and consistent trend, that fits theory with anomalous galaxy motions.

More About MOND
I don’t think to many would suggest MOND hasn’t performed well at predicting galaxy rotation curves, and in some ways has done a much better job than Dark Matter particle halo theory. One of the important considerations, is that the Dark Matter halo predicts the rotation curve should have a smooth transition of star velocities as you move out from galaxy centre, rather than the variable velocities of stars represented by a bumpy textured line along the rotation curve. This is because Dark Matter theory predicts a large gravitational potential with a smooth average across the galaxy. This graph shows what I’m talking about https://www.google.com.au/search?q=galaxy+rotation+curve+MOND&rlz=1C1GGGE___AU576AU576&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=667&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcw76j3L7JAhWIW5QKHaTLC6gQ_AUIBigB&dpr=1#imgrc=259tPRJPgBQl-M%3A

Another issue MOND doesn’t suffer which Dark Matter halo theory does, is the cusp core problem. If Dark Matter is all about its gravitational influence, then why doesn’t it pool at the centre of its own gravitational potential? And suggestion that galaxy baryons redistribute it, even though dark matter has much more bulk, and with no obvious perturbations to baryonic structure in galaxies. Anyway, MOND doesn’t suffer this problem.

A Variable Mass Theory
My theory is not a modified gravity theory. You do not have to change the rules of gravity beyond those we have used to calculate gravity within the solar system, inverse square law. It is a variable mass theory, and provides us with a reason, (and a value) to add extra mass to galaxy exteriors, at the source of anomalous detection's of mass and gravity. It also reduces mass galaxy interior, where we make observations which give rise to the cusp core problem.

Why not play around with a variable mass theory? Mass and Gravity are both unconstrained parameters within SMoPP. We play around with variable gravity theory’s, and variable particle theory’s. So long as the anomalous mass puzzle isn’t solved, let’s have a little fun. Play with whatever variables we can, and even better if we can conjure up an apparent reason to do so.

This theory prescribes changing mass of stars to fit galaxy rotation curves. Wouldn’t that be something if it was so simple?

MOND proposes a change to the way mass responds to gravity at small gravitational accelerations. So compared to general relativities predictions, this increases gravitational influences as you transition from inner galaxy to the outer galaxy disk. It provides an amendment, which can be described as a smooth transition from inner to outer galaxy, and matches observed rotation curves well.

Variable mass theory put in the simplest possible terms. If you prescribe an energy density to a field of space, which is proportional to mass. Then there is extra mass to account for as you transition from inner to outer galaxy, as field energy increases. The gravitational influence this extra mass represents, conceivably matches the extra prescribed gravitational influence that MOND does. So that’s a really interesting contrast. However, MOND’s formula breaks down when applied to motions of galaxies around galaxy groups, and I don’t believe my concept will. A qualified person will have no trouble confirming of refuting this claim.

Reason for universal structure
Expanding on the concept of field energy density, and its proportionality to atomic electric fields and mass, and the wider implications it has for an evolving field entity.

The candle flame analogy shows how a candle lowers local oxygen density, and in doing so lowers its own potential to burn. And we established that field energy density and a particles electric field and mass share the same relationship. A particle lowers field energy density, and less field energy equates to less mass and less energetic atomic electric fields.

This has the specific implication that the closer proximity flame or particles have with one another, volume to mass ratio, there is a multiplying effect, which can be described as a collective loading on the energy source. Because a particle reduces its own potential mass, as well as every other particles mass within close proximity. The lower the volume to mass ratio, the less collective potential there is for mass and atomic electric fields. I’ll refer to this as (volume to mass ratio).

Ok, so now we’ll need to make a leap of intuition. If the primary purpose of the material universe, (that is particles), is to deplete the field to allow for field generational exchange, and if close proximity makes particles less efficient at this task. Then it can be inferred that the field has a motive to retain adaptations which increase space between particles, and increase volume to mass ratio of celestial bodies made up of conglomerations of particles. And it is with this in mind, that structure of atoms, stars and galaxies makes for an interesting kind of logic.

Atoms, intricate assemblages of composite particles which have a volume to mass ratio 100,000 times larger than constituent nucleonic parts. Mostly comprised of space.

Atomic structure spreads a planets mass over volume of field 100,000 times greater than it would otherwise achieve.
However it is the implication that stars have adopted heat, for the specific purpose of further increasing their volume to mass ratio, and beyond even that which planets are capable. And enabling conglomerations of particles so large, without heat they would alternatively collapse to form pulsars and or black holes. It might even be inferred that supernovas are a mechanism adapted for keeping mass in useful circulation, rather than lost to dense, inefficient, low volume to mass ratio bodies.

And then we have the structure of galaxies, both spirals and ellipticals spreading the glowing orbs across vast distances of the field of space.

These structures both sub atomic and universally vast, make perfect sense in terms of being adaptations for increasing volume to mass ratios, and improving effectiveness of the material universes primary role for existence.

Assuming this is correct, then it also provides a possible reason why complexity of a fine tuned physical universe has emerged? It is conceivable that the fields complexity, from which the physical universe emerges, is a reflection of the elaborate processes it adapted for building intricate composite particles, capable of intricate interactions, which build stars capable of fusion etc.

I was asked the following question recently.
Theory based on theory is not the same as theory based on fact so what is the fact foundation for theory based on theory?

my answer
Yes theory based on theory does compound the possibility of drifting further from prospective reality. However there is a worse state of affairs than this, and for example when a new theory is invented to fix problems of a former theory, but despite there is no evidence for the new theory besides this need. And so when a theorist bases their work on the theory that was invented to fix another theory, which is not accompanied with physics and for sake of needing a fix might indicate it didn’t work. Then that scientist need be blissfully unaware of his/her predicament or suffer an occasional sleepless night.

If only this were an uncommon situation, however much of conventional theory is precariously balanced in such a way. If you map out the dividing lines and contradictions between our main theories of things, Standard model of particle physics and Theory of General Relativity. Then consider the challenges of developing a consistent model of cosmology based on a marriage of the two. And so when bold hypothesis are interjected like cosmological inflation theory, to fix big bang cosmology theory, then know the risk you are taking when your theory assumes inflationary process. I suggest that until our theories of particle physics and relativity play nicely with one another, then maintaining a small element of doubt regarding proposed cosmological models, is perhaps a health insurance policy.

Standard model of particle physics (SMoPP) is highly successful as a mathematical framework for describing particle behaviour. However it falls short in three regards. 1. Does not provide an explanation for why particles conform to observed parameters. 2. An explanation for gravity and mass remain unconstrained parameters. 3. Not having an explanation for mass extends our incomprehension’s to the correlations of nature, time dilation, inertial motion, gravitational acceleration which also correspond to influences of mass within gravitational fields, time dilation, gravitational potential and weight.

General Relativity (GR) as a standalone, does not conform to observed galaxy motions. And concept of space time curvature does not lend itself to an obvious interpretation within SMoPP for cause of gravity induced by mass. So it can be said that GR fails its primary function of predicting celestial motions, as well as failing 2. And 3. In the same respect as SMoPP.

Standard Model of Cosmology (SMoC) violates energy conservation laws on several levels. Does not provide an explanation for universal physical fine tuning. Requires numerous mathematical additives to enable conformation with GR, and which require physics and proofing in their own right, however this has not been achieved for Inflation, Dark Matter, Dark Energy. Pavel Groupa has falsified SMoC’s mechanism for building galaxies, based on a model of collisional galaxy merging.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPVGDXNSBZM

If I was a particle or cosmological physicist, and wanted to be sure I was not wasting my time chasing theory based on possibly inaccurate theories. Then I would seek to understand the parameters that are common too and link particle physics with relativity, that being mass and gravity. I would use the correlations of nature that give rise to the equivalence principle between inertial and gravitational mass as my guide, and seek to describe an underlying mechanism. And I would reserve final judgement on prospective cosmological models until this had been achieved, for risk of making bad assumptions based on other peoples assumptions.

In answer to the question, the fact foundation for theory based on theory, rests with the original theory which possesses the fact. So take the time to know source of the fact.

Better Than Standard
Once familiar with this theory, it apparently handles universal observations better than Standard Model of Cosmology? (Dark Energy) observations correlate to an evolving field, which is continually emerging from the vacuum of space, red shifting photons. However rather than expanding the universe, the energy is being consumed by mass, to enable the field to undergo generational exchange. I explain a relationship between field of space and mass (reason for gravity), which resolves the dark matter puzzle. So it informs what dark energy is, what dark matter is, and within a framework which answers to why the material universe emerged from the field, and how evolutionary process lead to complexity and fine tunedness of the physical universe as we see it today.

And I’ll get around to presenting a description of how the field achieved particle creation, which informs us the structure of particles. And how and why this structure conforms to the known properties of matter.

Generally speaking, my concept is dynamic, and has nothing to hide behind. Its naked for all to glare and poke, unlike big bang which was a long since past, onetime event. My theory prescribes a process which is universally ongoing today, and all around to see.

Testing the theory
I believe that a mathematical formula, should it accurately determine internal galaxy motions. The same rules of that formula will extend to motions of galaxies among galaxy groups. This was a test which MOND had trouble with, and unless my theory is correct, it is unlikely to do any better.

I haven’t presented this explanation for you yet, however the particle structure I will soon lay down for you, conforms to a series of known properties of matter, in a most extraordinary kind of way. Particle geometry which will mathematically conform to a number of value’s, but one of my favorites being kinetic energy. And a simple Feynman type drawing of my proposed particle structure consisting of a mere couple lines, but conforms to a wide range of measures. Equivalence principle, mass, gravitational potential, gravitational acceleration, weight, time dilation, and more. Its ability to be represented in such a way, speaks to how simple yet comprehensive it is. I know this seems too good to be true, but assuming for a moment that fundamentally particle structure is simple, it shouldn’t be too big of a surprise that its geometry should translate easily to known property of particles and matter. As it happens, this turns out to be true.

I don’t mind you being critical of my presentation. I am also. It was far more fun developing these ideas than it is learning how to convey them. But I know I’ve struck on something important, and so I’ll make the effort.

So I’m going to speak specifically to particle structure, and within context of being an evolved state for reasons of purposeful adaptations.

Nature of the Field
However just touching on speculative field regeneration first. The following explanation of particle anatomy, places a large emphasize on the fields use of elastic energy. A characteristic I believe particles inherit from the nature of the field. From day dot, the original emergent field had to have tapped into a natural energy potential of space. Just because we refer to it as the vacuum of space, doesn’t automatically mean it places a mechanical suction on the field. But it would make for a simple answer for how the field might accumulate elastic energy, and exploit for purpose of regeneration. A rather large potential if it could however, and might be the first principle of universal energy production, that flows through the entire universal system.

Particle Structure
So a quantum of primitive primordial field emerges from process I know not what. Begins to multiply, change, adapt and evolve. Divergent species materialize and compete with one another for habitat and resource, and evolutionary arms race ensues. As outlined earlier, immortality of the field presents a problem by way of habitat saturation, as any evolving entity would without mortality, and so the first adaptation toward mortality emerged in the form of electricity generation.

Electricity generation becomes a response of the field coupled with waves in the field, photons. Where by magnetism is a wave passing through the field, as water waves pass through the ocean. So in this respect, think of magnetism as actually being field, and electricity is a secondary response to a bend in the field. Magnetism is the field, electricity is an appendage that emerges from it.

So in a time before emergence of the physical universe, the first primitive particle had emerged, a photon. Generating electricity and clearing the field for purposes of clearing habitat for consecutive generations. Generational exchange so that the field might maintain a steady pace of adaptation under competition pressures. It had solved the immortality problem. But it had only just begun a process, that the material universe would eventual from.

Picture electricity as an appendage of the field, like a fin is for a fish. A limb that emerged for one reason, pushing through water, but later adapted by life so that reptiles might walk over land, and birds might take to the sky’s. And so too the field has adapted electricity for a number of purpose in addition to clearing the field, particle structure, bonding composite particles, increasing matters volume mass ratio, as well as providing a dynamic between field and magnetism and electricity, that enormous complexity of behaviours might evolve. A complex but causal set of interactions, and analogous to DNA in respect that elaborate intricate universal systems might emerge from these three basic components.

And then something truly remarkable occurred. The magnetic component of a photon collapsed to form a bubble, and for the first time the electric field had emerged at right angles from magnetism, to support the bubble from infinite collapse. As a soap bubble would collapse to infinity should it not have air pressure for support. The first primitive mass particle had emerged from the field, and the material universe was born. So in this respect, the field built the material universe with the only tool it had available to itself, and that is itself.

Strong Nuclear Force
It is the elastic force of the magnetic bubble which pulls in, constraining and concentrating the particles internal electric field, until it achieves magnitude we recognise as the strong nuclear force. This is the structure electromagnetism takes to achieve stable form. A magnetic bubble with internal and external electric fields, providing quantum collapse and wave particle duality a straightforward explanation.

It is a really interesting contemplation, that the material universe could not have arises before an adaptation of electric fields, at right angle to magnetism. The structure of EM has a reason.

Inertial Mass
It helps to think of photons and particles as being reactions in the field of space. Reactions you can consider as being pre-chemical, however are of a particular nature that later gives rise to properties of chemical reaction.
Picturing a photon as a reaction in the field, and radiation pressure being associated with its forceful progression through space at C, its rate of reaction dictating its velocity C, which always and only occurs at C. Radiation pressure is specifically associated with the magnetic component of the photon, and once incorporated into a particle, its spherical geometry gives rise to a mathematical association with mass and kinetic energy. So magnetic component of a photon collapses to form a bubble, and now the reaction rate that was associated with radiation pressure, now forcefully progresses across the surface area of a sphere. Inertial mass arises because the reaction can only propagate at C, and so to push the particle through space, you cannot add velocity to the particles currently occupied internal motion C. The sum total of internal motion, and motion through space must equal C. You must oppose, push against radiation pressure associated with a spherical geometry 4 pie r2, to move the particle. So it is no coincidence that Kinetic energy places resistance by square of the speed. And value of mass being the square of energy.

This analogy is not perfect, relating three dimensional spherical volume, to that of two dimensional spherical surface area of mass and kinetic energy. However it demonstrates a geometrical association. If you take a spherical shell, poke a hole in its side, and fill it with tooth paste. If you could shrink the radius of the shell at a uniformed rate, the shells volume would decrease by square of the radius, and tooth paste would extrude at a decreasing speed by square of the distance.

Value of mass and kinetic energy are associated with spherical geometry 4 pie r2.

What’s really interesting, is that although this basic structure of particles has been employed to build elaborate structures and composite particles, nearly all of the main characteristics and behaviors of matter are still directly determined by this fundamental spherical structure. Which provides really simple interpretations, for a surprising number of unknowns concerning particle physics, and affording me an array of circumstantial evidence to support my theory.

It is only a couple of steps from here, and I can show you how the equivalence principle emerges from this mechanism of mass.

Correlations and Equivalences of Nature
I believe the following diagrams accurately represent known correlations, as well as provide further insights, particle reaction rate, mass, motion, gravitational acceleration, gravitational potential, weight, time dilation. However I haven’t had benefit of other peoples appraisal. So we’ll see how it holds up.

This presents some level of insight into the nature of the mechanism underlying the equivalence principle, however I will need to provide an explanation for why two masses gravitate towards each other, before you can form a complete understanding.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wyni47q4r17lsp7/IMAG2668.jpg?dl=0

Notice how motion and gravitational potential have equivalent influence on the reaction rate of particles. And I love it how you can take the weight of something on your kitchen scales, and know its relative time dilation.

This diagram sheds a lot of the mystery surrounding the subject, and makes the correlations intuitive to understand. I will follow up with explanations to make this easily comprehensible.

Gravitational attraction
What is the mechanism that causes one mass, to move towards another gravitational mass?

In terms of my theory, it’s simple and works like this.

Photons and particles are reactions in the field of space, and of the nature that are continually emergent. So you can think of them as direct products of the field, and inherit properties of the field from their immediate surroundings.

As discussed earlier, picture a photon as a reaction, and it being responsible for its forceful progression through the field of space. Then the magnetic component collapses to form a bubble, the reaction still forcefully progressing as C, however across the bubbles surface. So now the particle can exist in a state the photon cannot, at rest in respect to the field.

In a field that has an even density distribution all over, the particles reaction that emerges from the field is in a state of balance. However it is this balance of the particles structure that is altered proportionately, by contour in the field energy density, that is representative of a gravitational field. If the field is a-symmetrical, then the particles reaction that emerges from it inherits the same proportions of a-symmetry.

So in this respect, a particle’s a-symmetry allows it to express a proportion of the motion it naturally possessed as a photon. A mass is not pulled or pushed towards another, rather it possesses the ability to drive itself toward a gravitating body, with the same function as photons.

This is why inertial and gravitational mass, weight and gravitational potential are all correlated as they are. They all emerge from the same undelaying simple mechanism, and the relationship between the field of space and mass.

So when you pick up your coffee cup off the desk, you’re sensing a distortion in the cups mass, which it inherits from the distortion in the field, cause by the Earth.

This is why those simple diagrams I made, can effectively represent the various correlations.

Light to Mass Ratios Galaxy Clusters
It also indicates why galaxies nested in the center of super clusters, dramatically lower the light to mass ratio of the overall system. They inhabit the lowest point in the gravitational potential, where the field energy is lowest, and mass is at its lowest potential. Its not a subtle effect, and is represented by this work, scroll down the page to the graph titled (light to mass ratios in clusters).

This next point is very recent speculation.
I am aware the surface temp of the stars inhabiting galaxies in super clusters is lower than average, and this is attributed to them being old and long lived stars. Due to no nebula's and renewal star forming process, which is most certainly undoubtedly a factor. However it might not be the only factor. If a star is made up of baryons which are lighter on average due to less field energy density inside clusters, then this leads to less gravitation pressure inside stars , and perhaps lower rates of fusion, less heat. So the stars black body signatures would move to longer wavelengths, and there would be less mass. This would explain why a clusters central super massive galaxy dramatically lowers mass to light ratios in the cluster. Like a hole in the systems overall mass.
http://astrobites.org/2013/10/09/dark-in-the-lightness/

Hard questions to ask yourself please?
How can you personally be sure your belief in theory is correct? Have you read, and decided you have understood and believe standard scientific theory, but haven’t actually rationalizing it for yourself? That would make your scientific belief more or less like a cultural belief, handed to you questions unasked. But perhaps you have rationalized conventional theory, and then decided you agree with it. Which would be perfectly ok.

If so, then you will know something of the limits and the challenges faced by conventional theory.

What physics or mechanism triggered the big bang?
Does the universe have a reason for existence?
How does the big bang deal with energy conservation laws?
What is the reason for apparent universal fine tunedness?
What is the physics or mechanism which caused inflation?
What are the physics of Dark Energy?
Where and what is Dark Matter?
What is the structure of particles?
What is the structure or mechanism which gives rise to mass, and how does it lead to the equivalence principle?
What is, and what causes quantum collapse?
What is the mechanism which gives rise to wave particle duality?
What is the mechanism that gives rise to the relationship apparent between mass and space (gravity)?
How does the mechanism operate which gives rise to the strong nuclear force?
Why does electricity and magnetism emerge at right angles to one another, and or why do they share a relationship at all?
If space is nothingness as prescribed by general relativity, then how can mass curve nothingness? And how can nothingness come in different shapes and sizes? Which basically makes distances across space relative, making the universe infinitely short from perspective of photons?
How can you develop a quantum theory of gravity, if space is nothingness?
Why is there a proportion between mass and gravity?
Why is there a correlation between gravitational potential, mass and weight, and what is the underlying mechanism?
Why does kinetic energy increase by square of the speed?
What is the property of matter, the mechanism responsible for black body radiation? What relation might black body radiation have with laws of thermal dynamics?
Why does heat never move to a hotter object?
What is the mechanism responsible for time dilation?
Why does particle physics interact in such a way, that evolving entities can emerge, life?
I don’t want to know how stars burn, I would like you to tell me if there is a reason they burn?
Why do particles form composite atomic structure?
And why are atoms so full of empty space?

You read these questions, and you think, (but no theory answers these questions). So why should I contemplate them? And the answer is, there is a theory now which answers to each of these questions. And you too will need to acknowledge the limits of conventional theory, so you may understand what might lay beyond them. If you haven’t considered at least some of them, then how can you claim to have rationalized your scientific beliefs?

The universe is a natural process, and natural processes generally are intuitive and comprehensible. That is the one’s we actually have come to understand generally are. And so now we might have a simple and natural explanation for the questions listed above.

Properties of matter
Nature of the field, magnetism, electricity, and how their interactions give rise to the physical properties of the universe. I’m going to fill in a few more particulars concerning fundamental structure of particles, and how they relate to anti-matter, atomic bonding, laws of thermodynamics, etc. Then we can start from the beginning again, and add another layer of complexity over my explanation.

The link contains diagrams which depict magnetic bubble particle, fundamental structure, in respect of the Bonding mechanism, Anti-matter, and thermodynamics.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/x35ss4z501t3fwd/IMAG2618.jpg?dl=0

Bonding
Initially the particles external electric fields repel each other. However as they draw closer together, each particles outer positive charges, and internal negative charges interact and attract each other to an increased extent. Eventually overwhelming the repulsion force.

Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter and Matter are represented by same fundamental structure, however with their negative positive charges reversed in terms of inside and out.

Thermodynamics
A particles magnetic bubble is in a state of equilibrium between the external electric field pushing in, and internal electric field pushing out. By adding heat energy to the external electric field, this equilibrium is altered, and the bubble is further compressed under the pressure. The internal electric field is compressed and increases in magnitude under pressure of the external force, until equilibrium is restored. However the heat energy is not stable in the outer electric field. The force of the internal electric field pushing out is enough, that the heat is steadily expelled from the system in the form of photons, black body radiation. In this respect thermodynamics is not a fundamental law, but rather the result of a mechanism within particles. It is a form of elastic energy which only pushes energy in one direction, and therefore results in heat only transferring to colder objects.

This is also why metal loses weight when it is heated, and gains it again upon cooling. I am confident there will be a proportionality uncovered, a shared link between black body radiation and weight increase under cooling. This is because mass corresponds to the magnetic component of particles, for which the surface area of the spherical particle is reduced under heating.
http://journalofscience.org/index.php/GJSFR/article/view/407
https://globaljournals.org/GJSFR_Volume12/1-On-the-Weight-Reduction-of-Metals.pdf

Mechanism Undelaying Correlations of Nature
My diagrams, the correlations, and particle reaction rate. I will speak to these aspects.

The correlations demonstrated in physics are the best clues we have to what’s going on, and what’s related to what. Think of them like puzzle pieces, and there being no such thing as coincidences. If the speed of light pops up in an equation, or time dilation being correlated to motion, or mass and gravity and inertia sharing a proportion. There is a reason.

Einstein built his theory of general relativity on the observation that inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent, however his theory does not attempt an explanation of the underlying mechanism responsible for this equivalence. Conceivably, the best prospect for checking his work, would be to uncover nature of the mechanism.

How would you know if you had uncovered the equivalence mechanism? Well it might make sense of a whole series of obscure but known correlations, and place them within a common context.

Take weight for example, which correlates to gravitational potential, time dilation, and mass. And actual motion corresponds to time dilation and inertial mass, so actual motion must also correspond to gravitation potential and weight. So everything is correlated, mass, motion, gravity, weight, time. And mass is correlated to energy, which is correlated to speed of light. So everything is correlated to speed of electromagnetic energy, including weight, gravity, motion, time etc etc. But why and how is everything connected, not just the equivalence principle?

Sounds confusing right, however I can track all the correlations with a simple diagram, so please feel free to test it? And the same simple diagram is representative of an overall universal system which solves the fine tuning problem, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, as well as particle structure. And the reason for the equivalence principle between inertial and gravitational mass, as motion and gravitational fields having an equivalent effect on particle structure.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xbrnnhh6ai...G2655.jpg?dl=0

Note how the diagram traces a single line from regenerative field of space, to gravity, to electric field? Dirac’s Large Numbers Hypothesis! This is representative of the candle analogy, matter consuming the field to generate electric field. And provides solution to the Dark Matter crisis.

Details of particle structure, and how the electromagnetic reaction moves across the surface of the magnetic bubble and giving rise to inertial mass. And diagram representative of mechanism for inertial mass and gravitation mass equivalence here https://www.dropbox.com/s/wyni47q4r17lsp7/IMAG2668.jpg?dl=0 Don’t let first impressions deceive you, it is quite simple.

The link contains diagrams which depict magnetic bubble particle, fundamental structure, in respect of the Bonding mechanism, Anti-matter, and thermodynamics.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wz988o4caf...G2619.jpg?dl=0

Reasonable Assumptions
I would like to impress upon people what I believe are good assumptions, that serve to better scientific inquiry. If every time we point a bigger telescopic eye at the sky, the universe gets bigger and older than thought, then try to stop making the same mistake. And likewise, the consistent trend of scientific unification's, and allow this to guide your basic assumptions? If conventional theory blocks your progress, take liberty to second guess it. Keep in mind that conventional theory is incomplete, so don't trust any singular road block. Know that conventional theory will block your inquiries, while contradicting and violating the same rules. Like big bang and energy conservation laws. Like Dark Energy and energy conservation laws etc. If conventional theory does not constrain itself, then why let it constrain you? Come up with a better idea that solves energy conservation laws and universal fine tuning perhaps!

Of all the obscure possible explanations there might be for the Universe, a theory of everything, I suggest there is only one theory of all the possibilities, that provides a uniquely definitive constraint. That everything of energy and or substance in the Universe, may arise from and owe its existence to something of common origin. It is certainly true that our scientific understandings have trended toward an ultimate and complete unification, however despite this, all manner of resistance stands before this basic assumption. Not least of which is prior held cherished beliefs, and which were formulated well before the proverbial explosion of observational data. I assert that there are rewards for those able to reconsider universal puzzles under new light, and draw new conclusions. The plethora of puzzles that remain unsolved.

The clues……

Assume unification
Trace physical correlations
Study successes, but also failings and challenges faced by conventional theory
Become intuitively aware of known symmetries and patterns of nature
Complexity arises from simpler configurations

Patterns of Nature
Throughout my life I've indulged a fascination for Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. And as I came upon details of particle physics, I couldn’t help but note the seaming parallel, of complexity emergent from simplicity. And in the same respect that all life on earth is emergent of a common origin, I came to consider perhaps all things universal arise from a single common origin.

Billions of molecules arise from but 118 elements. 118 elements arise from but quarks and electrons. So allowing the assumption all things universal of energy and or substance arise from a common origin, where do we go from here? Electromagnetic energy presents the obvious candidate. But if everything universal must be demonstrated of common origin, then gravity needs to be incorporated in such an explanation, along with our numerous and disparate scientific understandings, four fundamental forces, relativity, dark energy, dark matter and the like.

What is the simplest possible explanation that fits observation, and solves the unknowns?

Puzzle Clues from Nature
I’ll take clues any place I can hind them. My own observations, or other peoples, theory and speculations.

Scientific unknowns are puzzles. If you want to solve a puzzle, then you have to give considerable thought to how you approach the puzzle. You have to develop assumptions to narrow down the possibilities, and focus your inquiries. However this means the quality of your inquiries are determined by the quality of your assumptions.

I am presenting an explanation for a theory, for the benefit so that others will be able to make a judgement. How I approached the puzzle and arrived at my ideas is certainly useful information to this effect. Knowing the assumptions I made, hurdles and detours I navigated. A method of scientific enquiry.

Besides the puzzles are fascinating in themselves. I didn’t know I was going to form strong opinions, I was just enjoying the puzzles.

Theory designed or discovered
I can see things from your point of view, while you try to make sense of my loosely defined narrative. Its hard for somebody in your position to determine if my narrative is based on a process of discovery, for which the truth already existed and the observations lead to its uncovering. Or if I architected, designed a theory to fit observation. Of course I have the benefit of knowing which of these two processes it was. Unless I'm capable of deluding myself, which lets face it, some people are certainly capable of doing. But I'm quite sure it was a process of discovery.

You see I wasnt trying to unearth a concept of evolution. I was attempting to find a single origin of everything universal, which lead me to a particle structure that consumed a field. I had assumed the field would have a quality of ultimate simplicity, for it would be of natural origins and not designed. And actually I was quite slow to make the connection, that if the field of space is regenerative, it can change, adapt and evolve complexity over time. And so only then did I start speculating along evolutionary lines. As far as I'm concerned, I did not pre-presume evolution, but rather the possibility presented itself as a surprise for me. It was like a gift that fell out of my theory of particle structure, and provided encouragement I might be in the right track. I was kind of pinching myself, that I had a theory which provided a possible explanation for universal complexity and fine tunedness. And of course I’ve developed my ideas further since then, and whether right or not, the idea definitely lends itself to a possible interpretation of everything universal.

I don’t want to waste my time on theories that are wrong. I’d rather dedicate my time to things more productive, time with friends or work. But I cant convince myself this rather compelling idea is wrong.

Field Energy Contour Chart
I am about to post a link for a chart, which depicts field energy density value which hasn’t been defined yet, and its proportion to mass and weight. And then a diagram and explanation of the fields energy density tapering off towards galaxy centre.

I will also attempt to convey how my theory conforms to the various physical correlations depicted by my descriptions and diagrams. Time dilation, mass, gravitational potential and weight for example. I did not construct my theory with mathematics, although I recognise a need to do so, and intend too. But rather by mapping the physical correlations, and conceptualizing particle mechanisms which conform to them. This is why my simple diagrams are capable of depicting the correlations without contradicting many of the known relationships. But of course I present a series of controversial correlations, like field energy density and mass for example. But this is the piece of the puzzle I suggest fixes anomalous galaxy motions. So it can be tested, and that is really the point of this effort. Develop ideas that can be tested.

Mapping the correlations, and treating them like puzzle pieces is a really interesting exercise. It provides a really interesting insight into the process Einstein employed, and demystifies some of his thinking. Einstein shuffled the correlations like puzzle pieces too, and it’s not so difficult to re-trace some of his steps. Infact, you can place the puzzle pieces in a particular order of Einstein’s construct, and see how Relativity eventuates. And change one particular piece (time), and see how alternatively my theory eventuates instead. So in this respect, it shows a simple comparative contrast.

Chart (Field energy = mass)
The following chart when completed, will demonstrate the proportional relationship shared between the space field energy density, and that of mass. It is this simple association that will fit anomalous galaxy motions and gravitational lensing in all circumstances, cusp core, galaxy rotations, motions within super clusters etc. While providing straight forward interpretations of the Tully Fisher relation, textured line galaxy rotation curves, lopsided galaxy rotation curves, void negative lensing of light.

Because the field density and mass is a simple correlation, it can intuitively be visualized. However a mathematical account cannot be drafted, until the field energy density chart is given a value scale.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6d40e8zieyeaxio/IMAG2658.jpg?dl=0

Modelling Universal Structure
Remember when big bang theory and universal structures were all about quantum fluctuations set in motion first moments of the universe. But now modelling universal structure is all about dark energy and dark matter, sculpting voids and filaments of galaxies and clusters of galaxies.
My model is more or less the same, except rather than the dark energy being directed toward expanding size of the universe, the energy is consumed by matter. So this provides an intuitive understanding of the relationship between space and matter that gives rise to gravity. The Earth absorbs the field of space, and you are drawn to the Earth, effected by the contour in field energy density. The other thing my theory does, it unifies dark energy and dark matter as two aspects of the same process.

Following is a short video of convection currents rising in liquid. My proposal is analogous in respect that energy rises and spreads out across the surface of the liquid, pushes against other convection cells, before the energy is cycled back under surface of the liquid. Energy rises, spreads and falls, however the surface area of the liquid remains constant. Analogous to energy emerging in space, spreading out, before being consumed by matter, however not expanding volume of the universe.
I believe this explains the resemblance convection currents in liquids share with universal structure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHE-_VmjbSo
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=u...EJS8izgwgkM%3A

How much is the field energy expanding photons? is an observation the Hubble constant aprox 74km/sec per megaparsec. A megaparsec is aprox 3mil light years.

How Definitive and Quantative is My theory? The Fundementals
What I am attempting to do now, is respond to the need for definitive, and quantative descriptions of the field, photons and matter etc. The challenges this presents, but then I will describe how the field can come to be understood, and some things I have come to understand already.

I will readily admit limits to my understanding, however what I am quite sure about, there is a regenerative field of space, which is being consumed by matter. My conceptualization that the field has elastic qualities, exploits a mechanical force vacuum energy potential, is partly based on nature of magnetism and the role I believe it plays, but also because this is the simplest possible explanation. So cherry picked for it’s simplicity. I would encourage anybody to second guess this assumption, but I suspect that when the field energy density is charted, and conforms to anomalous galaxy motions, it will be done so using terms I have used.

It all comes down to what can be considered fundamental. Fundamentals of evolution might require an ability to replicate, and pass on advantageous traits to offspring. An evolving entity may fundamentally require an energy potential to exploit. All universal interactions may fundamentally be causal, and so evolutionary processes have to remain within the domain of physical causalities, limiting as they are. The universe appears to conform to mathematics after all.

The reason I point out the possible fundamentals, is so we might distinguish the alternative. I suggest that a fundamental of evolution is a rule which would apply to all universal life forms. Be they on Earth, or on other planets. And individual or species specific traits are not fundamental, size, colour, diet, habitat, social habits. When we are speculating on the potential nature of life on other planets for example, we can count on the short list of fundamentals, however beyond that it’s really hard to assume what characteristics of life that might emerge. Assume strange would be a good start, but unless you have a specimen to poke and prod.

When we apply these considerations to questions on the nature of the field, there are actually very few fundamentals we can assume. As listed before, ability to replicate, an energy potential to exploit, and physical causality might be the limit of fundamentals. Beyond that evolutionary process might develop a set of characteristics one time, and set in motion once again, might achieve something completely different the next. However it could be said there are a lesser set of fundamentals, like physicality’s of hydrodynamics for example, which don’t allow us perfect anatomical prediction of living traits, but life on other planets might look a little like fish, sometimes. And we also know something about molecules and chemistry, and so we can infer a lot, but without precision.

In this respect, is the field and its characteristics of fundamental nature? No it is an evolved state.
Is property of magnetism that emerges from the field fundamental? No a complex evolved state.
Is property of electricity fundamental? No
If today’s universal field where to be reset to its original primordial form and set to evolutionary progression once again, would magnetism as we recognise emerge from it again? Would electricity? Would the eventuality resemble the material universe as we see around us today? I suggest similar, like fish lookalikes on other planets perhaps, but there might be interesting differences. Composite atoms and chemistry for example.

Richard Feynman puts it best, discusses fundamentals in this short video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM

Many questions which might be put to me, are not of the fundamentals, but rather require study of a particular evolved field entity. I suggest an experienced physicist, or biologist would still be better capable at answering these questions than I, and perhaps one day there will be evolutionary physicists. A curious blend of sciences, coined here first. They would continue to poke and prod particles and light as they have been doing, and tease out the universes evolved nature. But with consideration that the physical universe emerges from a field, or fields which are in a highly complex evolved state.

I don’t much mind if my particle structure theory has inaccuracies. Take it or leave it, try your own ideas. But I do have some level of confidence, and I’m not wrong about evolved physics. It achieves too much, answers to many previous unknowns.

Fundamentals Continued
Now I will attempt to provide an insight into the nature of the field and its competitive ecosystem. I think the evolutionary principles are fundamentally the same, however as we have discussed, that’s a short list of functions. But there is plenty we can infer. The amazing complexity and diversity of biological systems owes its existence to the complicated array of atomic, particle, photonic and field interactions. Chemistry and heat and light and gravity etc, which interact in such an extraordinary way that life can emerge. So close to being an achievement comparable of magic, but without atoms actually being magical. Life representing the pinnacle of universal complexity, at the top of a hierarchal pyramid born of simpler configurations. So a photon while still displaying an amazing array of interactions, properties and behaviours, is a simpler form of particle incapable of chemistry for example. But holds the potential to form a massive elementary particle, which holds potential to form composite atoms, then elements, then molecules, then life. Molecules form DNA, which form cells, which form complex intercellular organisms, forms you. So all this potential is held within a photon, and in this same respect, the field sits at the bottom of this hierarchal pyramid, with the potential to form a photon, and set the cascade in motion. The field is of the simplest relative configuration, however has the potential within its simpler form that the physical universe might continually emerge from it.

So when we’re trying to infer the nature of the field and potential ecosystem, from that of the nature of life and ecosystem of Earth, you have to infer a tremendous level of simplicity to the range of potential interactions it can achieve. You might transfer the concept of species, but it’s going to be a very loose analogy. A field is very much not the same type of animal you find in the jungle. And it might be that there are far fewer niches in a fields ecosystem than in a jungle environment. Some animals evolve small so they can hide for example, but perhaps there is nowhere in a fields ecosystem to hide. And so there might be many comparative reasons why the fields ecosystem is a simpler dynamic than life on Earth. Perhaps bigger faster stronger is the only tactic, overwhelm or be overwhelmed, or perhaps there are tactics of attack, but I don’t know of them.

No doubt this answer is unsatisfactory, but that is just the nature of things. I’m new to this too, so am still grappling with the concept. But I suspect it’s going to get interesting.

If somebody insists on definitive, then I will gracefully admit I don’t have them. But I suggest I have something better. I have an explanation that appears to fit the physical correlations of nature, the equivalence principle, mechanism for mass, as well as a cosmological model that may conform to a stricter interpretation of energy conservation laws, a complete account of energy conversions and transfers, and provide an explanation for a highly fine tuned physical universe. Even a possible reason for emergence of the material universe, and for it to form the structure observed. No other theory does these things.

If I am deluded, then it’s a rather complex delusion I haven’t been able to find my way out of. Whenever I entertain doubts, I run through a checklist which just reaffirms my opinion. And then I validate my check list, and again I’m satisfied. If I am deluded, I’m sure I would make an interesting psychological study. At the very least I could contribute that to science.

Infers a Magnetic Bubble
Those who have read through my thread, will have noted my proposed elementary particle structure. A magnetic sphere supported from collapse by an internal electric field, and an electric field which emanates outwards from the spherical surface of the particle.

Its common knowledge that Atoms possess an electric field emanating in all directions from the nucleus, which is what the electron is seated in. It’s also common knowledge that magnetism and electricity share a relationship which places them at right angles to one another.

If you can always expect to find magnetism at right angles to an electric field, and there is an electric field emanating in every direction from an Atomic nucleus. Then it is not an unlikely possibility you will find a magnetic sphere at the source of the electric field.

It’s a really simple point that I make, and I hope will be considered in light of numerous other evidences I have provided for a spherical particle.

Michael Faraday achieved the first mathematical description of electromagnetism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farada...w_of_induction

Then James Maxwell improved on his work
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations

Here’s a nice little animation and description of electromagnetic energy on youtube I hadn’t come across previously.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZnYE3kvhhA

Bohrs atomic model
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_m..._energy_levels
Quote “The electron is held in a circular orbit by electrostatic attraction”.

My elementary particle structure, magnetic sphere demonstrates consistency with the Bohr Atom, and corresponds to known properties of electromagnetic energy.

A sphere is the only geometry which faces an equal value of surface area, at right angles to every direction in space. If there is an electric field emanating in every direction from the atomic nucleus, and there is magnetism at right angles to an electric field, then a magnetic sphere is a likely source.

Further more. A spherical magnetic elementary particle structure also provides an interpretation of a simple mechanism for inertial mass which conforms to correlations with gravitational potential and weight, strong nuclear force, kinetic energy, wave particle duality, quantum collapse, thermodynamics, black body radiation etc etc.

I have provided explanations and diagrams for details listed above, and how it relates a single and simple mechanism to all these various properties. So having already provided detailed evidences along these lines, I have now pointed out something of a much simpler nature we can infer about particles. I point out that knowing the relationship shared between electricity and magnetism, you can infer something about a Bohr atoms magnetic structure from its external electric field. If you know what one is doing, you can infer what the other maybe doing. I’m happy for this to be considered circumstantial evidence, and hopefully will be considered by people in light of all the other circumstantial evidences I have provided.

And if all this wasn’t enough already, this explanation of particle and atomic physical structure is seated within a context of a cosmological model which conforms to a relativity, which may conform to anomalous galaxy motions, an evolving field which gives rise to the physical universe, solving universal fine tuning problem, and providing a stricter interpretation of energy conservation laws than adhered to by conventional theories.

Something Fundamental
Atomic electric fields, and conservation of energy laws.
My hypothesis is that the regenerative field of space is being consumed by matter in a process of generating atomic electric fields. Hence the correlations between mass and gravity. And Dirac’s Large Numbers Hypothesis, the observation that there is a correlation between the expansion rate of space and value of atomic electric fields.

However let’s consider this from SMoPP’s conventional view point. That Atoms possess an electric field which perpetuates without any loss or deterioration for billions of years, or for the duration of an atoms life. Is this really the kind of behaviour of electricity we can accept unquestioningly? That electricity can persist in some kind of perpetual state? Some kind of electric stasis? Ok, perhaps the electric field is generated by something else, magnetism or the strong nuclear force. But how then could they energise an electric field continually without loss of energy to themselves? Perhaps you might argue that magnetism converts to electricity, and electricity back to magnetism unending. But could you expect this process to be the most perfect kind of efficient, no energy conversion losses what’s so ever? Ok, lets assume it is the most perfect kind of efficient. However atoms put their electric fields to work, holding electrons which might share elemental bonds with another atom. What does it mean that you can place a load on that elemental bond for billions of years even, without it tiring?

No matter which way you skin this rabbit, it violates conventional interpretations of energy conservation laws. Sure this violation isn’t as obvious as the big bang, creation of all universal energies in an instant and without proposed physics. So its easy for somebody to kick up a little mud and confuse this issue. But this energy conservation violation presents just as big a problem as the big bang. Conventional theory relies on the good graces of perpetual, hard working, untiring electric fields.

The alternative is that the physical universe is continually animated by the regenerative field of space.

Again like universal fine tuning, with no theory otherwise having presented a solution, we can be forgiven for our non-comprehensions. However given a contrasted view by which to reconsider our conventional ideas, and that appear to deal with these failings in a more adequate way. I suggest that is the time to take a fresh look at things.

The Bohr Atom
The Bohr Atom as conventionally described, is a beautiful system, and although only a fundamentalist would wager their life it is wholly complete and correct, it is certain to be a close description of atomic reality. I have great respect for those who contributed to this understanding, and BBC documentary "Atom" is an inspiring history lesson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kYCy_p05P4

Having said that, this hard won understanding of the Atom suffers a problem regarding energy conservation laws. The fact that the charge is considered a property of the particles involved so 'equalising' the charge involves creating or destroying them. However if an Atoms positive and negative charges cannot give up anything of themselves, then how do they perform work? If there is a potential between the charges which is exploited to perform work, then a traditional interpretation of energy conservation laws states that you cannot exploit the potential indefinably to perform perpetual work. A storm cloud builds charge, and electricity flows as lightning to equalize the charge. Lightning does not flow perpetually between clouds, and if it does so within the Atom, then you need a good reason. I dont use cliques very often, but to do otherwise would be to have your cake, and eating too.

Note my emphasis on "traditional interpretation of energy conservation laws". Because my proposed model resolves the problem of Atoms exploiting a never ending charge potential to perform work, by placing a never ending potential between a regenerative field of space and a mechanical vacuum within voids of space. Just shifting the problem you might argue, however it fits interpretation of universal observations of dark energy, gravity, and matter in a beautiful kind of way.

Atoms continually convert field energy into electricity, enabling them to perform continual work.

And the field doesn't mind being exploited in this way, because it benefits generational exchange and renewal. Processes useful for evolving entities.

Energy conservation and comparing gravity, to the atoms electric field and electron.
If it is your preferred interpretation of general relativity, that mass curves space and time to create a gravitational field, and so an orbiting body experiences no force upon it, because there is no force. Its just a body moving along a straight line in curved space? An interesting way to get around energy conservation laws by the way, for the alternative would require that if gravity was a force, its value would also have to factor duration.

But we’re not talking about General Relativity, so we don’t have any such trick to circumvent energy conservation laws when talking about an atoms electric field and electron interaction.

There are a lot of ways this could be argued, however simple is best.
An electron has mass? So it experiences inertia, and especially so because it moves very fast? So requires energy to change its direction of motion, and continual energy for continual change in inertial motion?

Assuming an electric field can persist without an energy source in the first instance, then how does an Atoms electric field overcome an electrons inertial mass, without performing work? And of cause an atoms ability to overcome electron inertial mass is of minor significance, when compared to its full potential expressed in elemental bonds.

The vagueness of QM cant save the argument, because energy conservation laws apply to that domain also.

---------------------------------------------------------
What an amazing end of year it was. Spacex rocket landing, Kelly slaters artificial wave, and Bitcoin founder Satoshi Nacamoto has been identified.
----------------------------------------------------------

There’s a change in the air, can you feel it?

What it seems we might agree on?
I’m assuming you’re on board with concept of Dark Energy, which comprises a large percentage of overall universal energy, and that this energy is increasing over time, and is responsible for red shifting photons from distant galaxies. That we can agree on this rather dramatic circumstance, is I suggest a nontrivial matter.

So if you and I can agree this energy is emerging in space, then lets consider two possible scenarios. Is the energy just spontaneously emerging in a non-sequential process which cannot lead to evolutionary progression, or is it regenerating by way of parental replication? For if it is the latter, then evolutionary progression is inevitable.

So the conventional view has it that dark energy only performs one function, expanding the universe, and is not connected with the physical universe in a more profound way. And so our paths diverge, conventional theory having nothing of further interest to say on the subject of dark energy beyond its observational evidence, while evolutionary field theory carries on a path of continued intrigue and universal unity.

An interpretation of this rather interesting dark energy phenomena, while providing an evolutionary context which solves universal fine tuning, improving on interpretations of energy conservation laws regarding Big Bang creation, dark energy emergence, Gravitational emergence, and atomic perpetual actions. Resolves anomalous galaxy motions attributed to dark matter. A cosmological theory, particle physics theory, relativity theory all in one. Provides a complete account of energy transferences and conversions. An evolutionary interpretation capable of explain physical structures of the universe, from scale of individual particles, to composite atoms, to stellar structure, galactic and galaxy group. Provides a mechanism for mass which corresponds simple explanation to the various correlations, gravitational potential, weight etc, and I have spoken so much about.

And amazingly Paul Dirac was right with his large numbers hypothesis, expansion of space and atomic electric fields are related to one another. Very clever man.

Self-Perpetuating Universal Processes
If the big bang creation event did not occur, then the universe needs another way of perpetuating the physical universe, synthesising protons neutrons etc. In this respect galaxies perpetuate themselves through quasar activity, black hole active galactic nuclei. An environment energetic enough to excite the field on a grand scales, and for long durations, and synthesis the material universe.
I believe that most, if not all of the complexity of behavior displayed by photons and particles, which our physics experiments have revealed. Have evolved for benefit of quasars ability to construct elaborate composite particles. Atomic structures which lead to stellar fusion and intricate galactic structures best suited for their primary task of clearing field energy. Allowing for generational exchange. Extreme forces tearing matter apart, photonic jets interlaced with twisting ribbons of magnetic field. It’s not so difficult to imagine how behavior like entanglement might serve this process, synchronizing and coordinating fundamental particles in a serious of stages, interactions, so they might assemble elaborate atomic structure.
Super clusters are also galactic wrecking yards, so a dynamic place of birth and death.
Works for me, but I hope I didn’t just lose you? Soon I will present what I believe to be fundamental elementary particle structure, which will serve a useful perspective for you. You can judge if I’m crazy then, if you haven’t already.

Here’s an amazing picture https://www.google.com.au/search?q=q...txdvRc4MxWM%3A

Last Word
Again like universal fine tuning, with no theory otherwise having presented a solution, we can be forgiven for our non-comprehensions. However given a contrasted view by which to reconsider our conventional ideas, and that appear to deal with these failings in a more adequate way. I suggest that is the time to take a fresh look at things.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Questing

[Strange]

 

I did not construct my theory with mathematics, although I recognise a need to do so, and intend too.

 

Then you are wasting your time posting here. Come back when you have a theory (i.e. the mathematics) and can show how well it matches observation. Until then there is nothing to discuss.

[Questing]

 

Then you are wasting your time posting here. Come back when you have a theory (i.e. the mathematics) and can show how well it matches observation. Until then there is nothing to discuss.

Did I walk through the wrong door? Speculations page isn't it?

[Mordred]

Speculation forum has rules, one of those rules when posting a model or theory is showing the associated math.

 

Lets try this I'm familiar with both LCDM galaxy (dark matter rotation curves) as well as MOND.

 

You wish to introduce your variable rotation curve. How can I the reader compare your idea to the two without the formula for comparison? I can't so I have no basis to test your model...

[ajb]

Did I walk through the wrong door? Speculations page isn't it?

But it not the make anything up page...

 

Anyway you have written a lot, too much I think for many people to read carefully and get a conversation going.

[Mordred]

How would I know your knowledgeable in the mathematical end? For example are you familiar with how the NFW profile is incorperated into the galaxy rotation curve power law?

[Questing]

But it not the make anything up page...

 

Anyway you have written a lot, too much I think for many people to read carefully and get a conversation going.

Its only been up a few minutes, so perhaps you will take more time for consideration? or not. Its not so long, like a book or anything.

Speculation forum has rules, one of those rules when posting a model or theory is showing the associated math.

 

Lets try this I'm familiar with both LCDM galaxy (dark matter rotation curves) as well as MOND.

 

You wish to introduce your variable rotation curve. How can I the reader compare your idea to the two without the formula for comparison? I can't so I have no basis to test your model...

This is an evolutionary based theory. Does Charles Darwins approach fall over as a theory, for lack of maths? Sure relativity theory needs math, no question. Maths isn't my area, so I'll collaborate with others or learn, given time.

 

The thread has been open a few minutes only, so I suggest the difference between a non comprehension of my theory, and a comprehension, might only be the time you've spend in consideration.

[ajb]

Its only been up a few minutes, so perhaps you will take more time for consideration? or not. Its not so long, like a book or anything.

Well I have had a quick look at it... you propose some extra field in the Universe but do not describe this in any detail. There is no way to give a real critique to your idea. You need to build the model properly otherwise you have nothing but a fanciful story.

 

I have no idea what you mean by 'most primitive form' for a field. What does it mean for a 'field to replicate'? What does it mean for fields 'to find themselves experiencing competition for habitat and resource'? What does it mean for 'fields to adapt'?

 

Truthfully I am lost... you are using terms that are not standard or familiar to people who have some idea about classical and quantum field theory. You will need to define all this much more mathematically.

[Questing]

How would I know your knowledgeable in the mathematical end? For example are you familiar with how the NFW profile is incorperated into the galaxy rotation curve power law?

I willingly have admitted my inability at advanced math, necessary to formulate my rotation curves. If I told you I can generally visualize the dynamics of gravity and many puzzles of dark matter cosmology, no doubt you will declare this unsatisfactory. maybe, maybe not. Or perhaps I have nailed it for reasons you havent realized yet.

 

NFW profile I'll look up

[ajb]

 

This is an evolutionary based theory.

You do not have a theory as any physicists would understand it.

 

 

Does Charles Darwins approach fall over as a theory, for lack of maths?

That is an interesting point, but moot for this discussion. There is a general lack of mathematical foundation of the biological sciences, but this is slowly changing. The main reason for this, I think, is simply that one is dealing with highly complex systems and the standard simplifying assumption of physics are not so good here. Anyway, this is no redemption of your 'theory'.

 

Sure relativity theory needs math, no question. Maths isn't my area, so I'll collaborate with others or learn, given time.

This is not what anyone wants to here from someone who has claimed to have a new theory of cosmology!

[Questing]

Well I have had a quick look at it... you propose some extra field in the Universe but do not describe this in any detail. There is no way to give a real critique to your idea. You need to build the model properly otherwise you have nothing but a fanciful story.

 

I have no idea what you mean by 'most primitive form' for a field. What does it mean for a 'field to replicate'? What does it mean for fields 'to find themselves experiencing competition for habitat and resource'? What does it mean for 'fields to adapt'?

 

Truthfully I am lost... you are using terms that are not standard or familiar to people who have some idea about classical and quantum field theory. You will need to define all this much more mathematically.

The answers are presented in the thread, however if you wont read it? Plain English no less, which is a remarkable strength demonstrated by the theory I feel. Plain and simply for anybody to understand. If theyll read it

 

[ajb]

 

If I told you I can generally visualize the dynamics of gravity and many puzzles of dark matter cosmology, no doubt you will declare this unsatisfactory. maybe, maybe not.

How can you have any confidence in your imagination? How can you begin to test what you imagine against nature if you cannot put numbers to your predictions?

 

Or perhaps I have nailed it for reasons you havent realized yet.

You need to formalise everything before you can even suggest this!

The answers are presented in the thread, however if you wont read it?

I have read some of it.

 

Plain English no less, which is a remarkable strength demonstrated by the theory I feel.

You have explained very little in a way that we can begin to understand.

 

I have no idea what many of the terms you use mean for a quantum or classical field.

 

Plain and simply for anybody to understand. If theyll read it

But this is not true. You need much more than a story to claim that you have a theory.

[Mordred]

The problem is in order to have a theory it must make testable predictions. For example it must predict how much mass is required to have a specific rotation curve at various points in a galaxy. You can't do that without formulas.

So how can you claim to have a better solution without testing your model to current models, without the mathematics?

[Strange]

This is an evolutionary based theory. Does Charles Darwins approach fall over as a theory, for lack of maths?

 

1. Darwin was not a physicist.

 

2. He did have a large amount of data. You don't even seem to have that.

[Questing]

How can you have any confidence in your imagination? How can you begin to test what you imagine against nature if you cannot put numbers to your predictions?

 

I have dinner guests arriving, so have to turn my attention now. But its good to meet you ajb. I would like you too have taken more time to read and consider, however I appreciate your attention, and am looking forward to answering your questions.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Questing

[Strange]

I willingly have admitted my inability at advanced math, necessary to formulate my rotation curves. If I told you I can generally visualize the dynamics of gravity and many puzzles of dark matter cosmology, no doubt you will declare this unsatisfactory. maybe, maybe not.

 

Can your "visualization" tell you what will happen when you fall through the event horizon of a black hole? Or the how long it will take you to reach the singularity? Or the shape of the central singularity for a Kerr (rotating) black hole?

 

If you can (to some extent) visualise any of these things that is only because you have read someone else's description. And they did the math to work out the answers. Without that, your ability to visualise is worthless. So, basically, you are taking a free ride from those who have put in the hard work, while you are too lazy to do that.

[ajb]

I would like you too have taken more time to read and consider, however I appreciate your attention, and am looking forward to answering your questions.

I tried, but you are not using the language or formalism that is required. I am lost at an early stage as you have not defined many terms at all, and for sure not in a way I am able to understand.

 

The early questions must be

• What is the nature of this field? (Bosonic, fermionic, scalar, tensor, something else?)
• What is the Lagrangian for this field? (Or if it does not have a Lagrangian, what are the equations of motion)
• What does ''its most simple primitive form'' mean for this field?
• What does ''ability to self-replicate'' mean for a classical or quantum field?
• What does ''generational change'' mean for a classical or quantum field?
• What does ''divergence of species'' mean for a classical or quantum field?

It seems that all you have done is throw some biology words at field theory! And this is just in your section 'Field Emergence'. I would rather you address these questions before we move on. Edited January 6, 2016 by ajb

[Mordred]

A field welling up in space, exploiting a natural energy potential of the vacuum (red shifting photons). but rather than expanding the universe as a whole, it is this energy which is being reabsorbed by matter, and provides an intuitive explanation for cause for gravity. This scenario allows the field to undergo generational exchange, necessary for evolutionary process.

Ok let's stop right here... redshift isn't the only evidence of an expanding universe. Cosmologists use redshift as merely a guideline measurement. We confirm that redshift data with various parallax methods.

 

However the most telling piece of evidence that the universe is expanding is thermodynamic laws. pV=nRt. We see the universe cooling as a direct result of an expanding volume.

 

I've lost count on the number of proposed "the universe isn't expanding models" that fail to account for the thermodynamic laws.

Secondly using the Bose-Einstein statistics one can calculate the number density of photons at a given time via the temperature. For example using the CMB temperature. This can be done for any bosons. For fermions you use the Fermi-Dirac statistics. These two formulas use the number of degrees of freedom of a particle, it's entropy density, chemical reactions etc. It's applications of those two formulas is extremely well tested.

You can find the procedure in chapter 3 of this article

 

http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis

Just a side note you can see the energy-density to pressure influence on how the universe will expand in the FLRW metric acceleration equation

 

 

[latex]\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=-\frac{4\pi G\rho}{3c^2}(\rho c^2+3p)[/latex]

[swansont]

The Bohr Atom

The Bohr Atom as conventionally described, is a beautiful system, and although only a fundamentalist would wager their life it is wholly complete and correct, it is certain to be a close description of atomic reality.

 

I should hope that nobody would bet their life on this, as we know the Bohr model is both incomplete and wrong

 

Having said that, this hard won understanding of the Atom suffers a problem regarding energy conservation laws. The fact that the charge is considered a property of the particles involved so 'equalising' the charge involves creating or destroying them. However if an Atoms positive and negative charges cannot give up anything of themselves, then how do they perform work? If there is a potential between the charges which is exploited to perform work, then a traditional interpretation of energy conservation laws states that you cannot exploit the potential indefinably to perform perpetual work. A storm cloud builds charge, and electricity flows as lightning to equalize the charge. Lightning does not flow perpetually between clouds, and if it does so within the Atom, then you need a good reason. I dont use cliques very often, but to do otherwise would be to have your cake, and eating too.

There is no energy conservation problem. What work are you referring to?

 

Electricity does not flow perpetually within an atom.

 

Note my emphasis on "traditional interpretation of energy conservation laws". Because my proposed model resolves the problem of Atoms exploiting a never ending charge potential to perform work, by placing a never ending potential between a regenerative field of space and a mechanical vacuum within voids of space. Just shifting the problem you might argue, however it fits interpretation of universal observations of dark energy, gravity, and matter in a beautiful kind of way.

 

Atoms continually convert field energy into electricity, enabling them to perform continual work.

 

And the field doesn't mind being exploited in this way, because it benefits generational exchange and renewal. Processes useful for evolving entities.

 

 

You appear to be "solving" a nonexistent problem.

 

Did I walk through the wrong door? Speculations page isn't it?

We have our standards

[Questing]

How would I know your knowledgeable in the mathematical end? For example are you familiar with how the NFW profile is incorperated into the galaxy rotation curve power law?

I did touch on the subject of Dark Matter redistribution within centers of galaxies, which are suggested to solve the cusp core problem. I realize the need to speak tentatively about this, because Dark Matter theory is liberal with its constraints, such is the nature of its speculations. Invent a new and tailored property. However my problem with this particular idea, it suggests that the component of galaxies which is a minority, (the feather weight Baryons) is gravitationaly pushing the component of galaxies which makes up the majority (the heavy weight DM). And with no obvious perturbations imposed on the Baryons. And even if it can achieve such a redistribution and balance of DM over large periods of time, surely galaxy merges would disturb this balance, mix things up and make some evident measurable effect? But there is no such signal.

 

wiki NFW spatial mass distribution profile.

Very importantly, the analysis of the inner parts of low and high surface brightness galaxies showed that the shape of the rotation curves in the centre of dark-matter dominated systems, indicated a profile that differed from the NFW spatial mass distribution profile.^[20] This so-called cuspy halo problem is a persistent problem for the standard cold dark matter theory. Simulations involving the feedback of stellar energy into the interstellar medium in order to alter the predicted dark matter distribution in the innermost regions of galaxies are frequently invoked in this context

You do not have a theory as any physicists would understand it.

 

That is an interesting point, but moot for this discussion. There is a general lack of mathematical foundation of the biological sciences, but this is slowly changing. The main reason for this, I think, is simply that one is dealing with highly complex systems and the standard simplifying assumption of physics are not so good here. Anyway, this is no redemption of your 'theory'.

 

This is not what anyone wants to here from someone who has claimed to have a new theory of cosmology!

Having read the explanation and taken some time to contemplate, a physicist will have no trouble comprehending. The theory is written in terms of simple and intuitive relationships of natural phenomena, and their observations. It is more likely that the simplicity of my explanations will grate the typical physicist more than anything else. It seams to me a tendency of people in general, that anything we dont yet understand, the answer is assumed to be of some added complexity. I pushed through a number of unknowns to achieve this understanding, because I realized the answers lay in the other direction, simplicity overlayed with complexity.

 

I didnt first realize evolutionary process and then build my concept of particle structure. I came at this by building a particle structure which explained the correlated properties of matter. Mass, inertial motion, gravitational potential, time dilation, weight etc. If you would like to appreciate something tangible of my theory, then consider how the following simple diagram conforms to these correlations. The circle represents my bubble particle, and notice how inertial motion and gravitational potential can be represented by the same line. You can confirm this by noting the mutual correlation with time dilation, a property of the particle which conforms to both.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xbrnnhh6ai...G2655.jpg?dl=0

 

How do you suggest I express an evolutionary process using mathematics? Moot you say!

 

 

[Mordred]

As stated before, a model needs to be able to make testable predictions. Without that, no matter how valid, brilliant etc an idea is... it's never going to go beyond conjecture.

 

I would suggest you learn the current mathematics then figure out how to show your model accordingly.

 

Trust me I once spent 5 years trying to solve dark energy. Once I studied the mathematical end of cosmology. I proved my own theory wrong. My idea was simple, any high density region naturally wants to reach a lower density.

 

What I didn't know then was that this was already calculated into the equations.

 

Yes your idea is different. It will still require the math to get any professional physicists attention

Edited January 7, 2016 by Mordred

[Questing]

How can you have any confidence in your imagination? How can you begin to test what you imagine against nature if you cannot put numbers to your predictions?

You need to formalise everything before you can even suggest this!

I have read some of it.

You have explained very little in a way that we can begin to understand.

I have no idea what many of the terms you use mean for a quantum or classical field.

But this is not true. You need much more than a story to claim that you have a theory.

I have confidence in my imagination, because of the multitude of confirmed physical correlations of nature, which my theory successfully conforms too. And in such a simple and self supporting way. And also the multitude of questions it answers, which standard model cant even approach. Like universal fine tuning, and energy conservation.

 

I have a theory. You just haven't realized it yet

[Mordred]

No you have a conjecture. Or idea not a theory a theory requires the mathematics to be testable.

Ok let's stop right here... redshift isn't the only evidence of an expanding universe. Cosmologists use redshift as merely a guideline measurement. We confirm that redshift data with various parallax methods.

 

However the most telling piece of evidence that the universe is expanding is thermodynamic laws. pV=nRt. We see the universe cooling as a direct result of an expanding volume.

 

I've lost count on the number of proposed "the universe isn't expanding models" that fail to account for the thermodynamic laws.

Secondly using the Bose-Einstein statistics one can calculate the number density of photons at a given time via the temperature. For example using the CMB temperature. This can be done for any bosons. For fermions you use the Fermi-Dirac statistics. These two formulas use the number of degrees of freedom of a particle, it's entropy density, chemical reactions etc. It's applications of those two formulas is extremely well tested.

You can find the procedure in chapter 3 of this article

 

http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis

Just a side note you can see the energy-density to pressure influence on how the universe will expand in the FLRW metric acceleration equation

 

 

[latex]\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=-\frac{4\pi G\rho}{3c^2}(\rho c^2+3p)[/latex]

Please address this problem I found in the early portion of your opening post. I stopped reading once I found the error I wrote this about.

[Questing]

As stated before, a model needs to be able to make testable predictions. Without that, no matter how valid, brilliant etc an idea is... it's never going to go beyond conjecture.

 

I would suggest you learn the current mathematics then figure out how to show your model accordingly.

 

Trust me I once spent 5 years trying to solve dark energy. Once I studied the mathematical end of cosmology. I proved my own theory wrong. My idea was simple, any high density region naturally wants to reach a lower density.

 

What I didn't know then was that this was already calculated into the equations.

 

Yes your idea is different. It will still require the math to get any professional physicists attention

I think my explanation is flirting so close to prediction. As close as is possible without actually presenting the math.

 

I appreciate what you say here, and thank you. I know it sounds like I'm not very humble, but you'll have to take my word for it that I am. I'm a regular guy, however it seams to me that I just happen to be good at this particular kind of puzzle, and there was some luck and unusual circumstances involved as well. I made a couple of key assumptions, uncovered and followed a very informative thread of inquiry, and it all just fell into place one step at a time. And the only reason the puzzle fell into place for me, was because of the high caliber observations and measures of the scientific community. You guys did the hard work, layed down high quality clues, and I almost feel guilty for steeling this from somebody more deserving.

 

I think time will show that I am right. It just makes such simple sense of the dark matter, dark energy puzzle, inertial mass etc. In any case, I am kicking myself.

 

I do wonder who will be the one who confirms or debunks my theory. Perhaps I have setup up a grand opportunity, a particular physicist will recognizance and hit out of the park. If I am right, there is a grand prize up for grabs here

[Mordred]

I doubt it, so far one of the better candidates for both dark matter and dark energy lies in the SO(10) MSSM. They at least have the mathematical support. Those theories are currently being tested.

 

DARK MATTER AS STERILE NEUTRINOS

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119

http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301

http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4954

 

Higg's inflation possible dark energy

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738

http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755

http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801

 

it's too bad you won't take the time studying the current models and their mathematics. As I stated no physicists pays attention without some math as a guideline.

 

If you wish to learn the math I suggest looking at the cosmology signature link on my posts. There is several good textbook style articles.