This thread has had no "takers" but was meant to be a companion thread the the "No Solid Particles..." thread (which was just closed by the 30 day rule) to help convey the concept of the ISU and encourage anyone who thinks that there was a "before and beyond" the big bang to come out and play.

The ISU Field Theory is being developed to bring the conservation up a level in hopes some of you will exchange ideas with me about the "before and beyond" the big bang, challenge my ideas, and say what you think is wrong with them, and offer improved ideas that are more reasonable and responsible. Though all of this is in the realm of speculation, reasonable and responsible speculation has a place.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-field-ph.html

Field
From: The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition | Date: 2007
Print Digg del.icio.us
Field in physics: region throughout which a force may be exerted; examples are the gravitational, electric, and magnetic fields that surround, respectively, masses, electric charges, and magnets. The field concept was developed by M. Faraday based on his investigation of the lines of force that appear to leave and return to a magnet at its poles (see flux, magnetic ). Fields are used to describe all cases where two bodies separated in space exert a force on each other. The alternative to postulating a field is to assume that physical influences can be transmitted through empty space without any material or physical agency. Such action-at-a-distance, especially if it occurs instantaneously, violates both common sense and certain modern theories, notably relativity , which posits that nothing can travel faster than light. In a field description, rather than body A directly exerting a force on body B, body A (the source) creates a field in every direction around it and body B (the detector) experiences the field that exists at its position. If a change occurs at the source, its effect propagates outward through the field at a constant speed and is felt at the detector only after a certain delay in time. The field is thus a kind of "middleman" for transmitting forces. Each type of force (electric, magnetic, nuclear, or gravitational) has its own appropriate field; a body experiences the force due to a given field only if the body itself it also a source of that kind of field. The reciprocity implied by Newton's third law of motion (equal action and reaction) is thus preserved. If two bodies exert a mutual force, they possess potential energy that depends on their relative positions; it is natural to regard this energy as residing in the field the bodies create.

The above description and usage of the term “field” is adopted by the ISU Field Theory. In the ISU, the gravitation field is not exactly like the scalar fields connected to gravity in Friedmann-Robertson-Walker backgrounds, and spacetime is not curved as such. That is not to say that objects in a gravitational field of the ISU do not move almost exactly as they are predicted to move in GTR because they do. The difference is the coupling of space and time in GTR and the mode of transmission of force through space.

Curved spacetime is a beautiful thing and it is the best yet at predicting the movement of objects in spacetime, but it is wrong from the perspective of the ISU Field theory. It is wrong because the correct theory will accommodate the infinite existence of space that had no start time. It is wrong because the correct theory will accommodate a pre-existing energy that is now occupying our expanding arena in space. It is wrong because the correct theory will allow science to explore the “before and beyond” the big bang without having to pay due respect to the gradual turns and slow direction changes characteristic of the scientific community.

In the ISU I am busy thinking about the source and cause of the big bang instead of bowing to the proclaimed uselessness of such thought. In the ISU I am busy thinking through the kind of energy background that would enable our expanding universe to exist within an infinite “greater universe”. In the ISU I am busy thinking about particles and specifically a unifying particle that explains all forces and of which all matter is composed.

Throw up you hands at me. Raise every complaint about my methods. Act as if no one who leaves the Internet foot print that I have left could possibly be right. Just stick with the principle that if I can’t prove any of my theories then they aren’t worth thinking about.

Now I know that I am not hitting the nail on the head as to why you (most of you) won’t play with me. There are as many reasons as there are of you who read my ideas and “take a pass” on replying with anything constructive. Most of you are kind enough not to “wise crack” and play to the community’s fondness to see those with my approach put in their place. Thank you for that.

Then there is the issue of confidence in the scientific community that tells you in your heart that if there was anything to my ideas, the community would be way out front of me in getting to the truth. So I must either be wrong or at best inconsequential. And to that I say, “True, but this is what I do .”

Why do I do it? It seems that I have an idea that makes for a simpler universe. I have an idea that offers an explanation of where our universe came from, of why it is expanding, why the expansion is accelerating, what causes the effects that “dark matter” is supposed to explain, how mass forms, what causes gravity, where is the anti-matter, and why the hydrogen and helium abundance.

If you just consider the unifying particle and the energy background of the infinite universe containing such a particle as "the field", then it is within the realm of reasonable and responsible speculation to talk about the ISU in the terms I have been developing. Defining the terms as I go and adding them to the ISU Glossary will give everyone ample opportunity to reply in some constructive way.

My next thread will be about the ISU Field Theory and for thirty days I will defend what I have to say. See you there? I know, ha. (PM or email me if you want to play but don't want to be seen with me. In your heart you suspect I'm right, don't you?)