The ISU Dialogues, Part One -- The Theory That Goes EEP

DB: "You haven't had us over for coffee as much lately. Are the ATM rule changes at BAUT the reason?"

CM: "Yes, I'm afraid so. There's been slim pickins' in ATM lately. I wanted to discuss Coldcreation's cosmology because there was one topic, the possibility of an upper limit to the amount of curvature, that I thought worthy of discussion. But the thread got derailed on some peripheral topic and kept getting closed, so we won't be discussing that."

BH: "Maybe we could deconstruct Dutch's 'Hyperdimensional Design'?"

CM: "A complete waste of time. There's no science in it, everyone (well, almost everyone) can see that, he's only making it up as he goes along. Not worth our time.

CM: "A worthier use of our time and my coffee would be taking a good look at the 'Infinitely Spongy Universe' theory of Bogie. I've not been able to work up an interest in it until now. I want you to read this printout of 'The Infinite Reach of Gravity' thread and see what you think."

A half-hour and a cup of coffee later, we put down our copies and started to discuss.

BH: "The most notable thing about Bogie's presentation are the things that are not there: no equations, no anti-matter, no neutrinos, no quarks, no quantum mechanics to speak of, no mention of relativity, special or general."

CM: "That bothered me a little. You'll notice my comment in the thread about Eddington's Fundamental Theory. I really did read it back at the university; an interesting book but ultimately left behind as a dead end because it did not acknowledge all of the particles discovered and already known within Eddington's lifetime. To Eddington and to Bogie the universe seems to consist only of protons, electrons and photons. Such was the list of known particles at the dawn of quantum mechanics. Within Eddington's lifetime the positron (predicted by Dirac), neutron and muon were discovered. Since then we've seen an explosion of particles which have given way to the fundamental particles of the standard model: six quarks, six leptons, photon, W+/-, Z, gluon and (maybe) Higgs and graviton. Could any of these be composites of some smaller number of particles? Possibly, there are models out there but so far no observations to back any of them up."

DB: "I notice that Bogie doesn't really say much about the properties of his so-called EEPs. He doesn't say how much mass they have, how much angular momentum, well, in post #20 he does say how much charge, but I don't really believe it."

CM: "There's a very fundamental error in his calculation of the number of EEPs in the proton and the electron. We'll get to that later. But first let's look at post #2 of the thread.

CM: "There's a lot here; we don't have spacetime to comment on it all, so I'll try to summarize."
BH: "And not an equation in any of it! I'd feel a lot better if there was a wee bit of quantum mechanics describing an equation of motion for these EEPs, or maybe a propagator or something."

DB: "All Bogie is doing is telling a story; he's after understanding."

CM: "But it won't come just from storytelling. A story is just that; a story. An equation is a library-full of stories, stories that write themselves if you only have the understanding. ( ) Unfortunately when most people use the word 'understanding', such as when VivPope wrote 'understanding is more important than equations', it's not understanding that they're after, but some kind of new-age mantra for their navel-gazing. I'm not willing to provide this. OK, here's something for you navel-gazers out there: 'Mass is what enables us to sit still and wait.' This should provide hours of navel-gazing enjoyment. Meditate on that."

CM: "While the navel-gazers are occupied elsewhere, let's get back to post #2 of this thread. Let's look at it in a little more detail. One of the first things I take issue with is this:"
CM: "Quantum field theory has been one of the most successful of our theories; quantum electrodynamics (QED) makes predictions to ten decimal places and more that are measured in experiments. And at the bottom of it all is the conception of creation and destruction operators. And with the exception of the photon (which is treated as its own anti-particle), this means creation and destruction operators for particle and anti-particle."

BH: "I noted that there was no mention of anti-matter anywhere. How does he propose to put together an anti-proton out of hundreads of millions of EEPs in such a way as to guarantee the same mass but opposite charge?"

CM: "Indeed. In some other thread I also asked how all of these presumably neutrally-charged EEPs could give rise to a charged composite. I did not find the answer satisfactory. But there is a way out for Bogie, if he's willing to take it. If he allows for the existence of anti-EEPs, anti-particles of his EEPs, he is then able to build anti-matter that is exactly the 'mirror image' of matter simply by combining anti-EEPs in the same way as EEPs where combined. As a bonus, a photon can then be considered as a composite of EEPs and anti-EEPs, although there is no evidence as yet for such structure in photons."

DB: "Why are you telling Bogie what his theory should be?"

CM: "Well, if he does progress in his reading and learning he will ultimately have to take in some quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. I'm hard-headed enough to know what is necessary and soft-hearted enough to give it to people, whether they understand it or not."

DB: "Or want it or not!"

CM: "That too."

BH: "But I'd really like to know what you found wrong with his computation in post #20."

DB: "And I'm sure most of our readers would like to know, too."

CM: "OK, let's get a refill and I'll deconstruct post #20."

To be continued ...

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

The ISU Dialogues, Part Two -- Numerology

Our cups refilled, we got back to Bogie's Infinite Spongy Universe:

CM: "We're taking a brief detour to discuss Bogie's assertion that the proton contains 699,955,457,517 EEPs and the electron contains 381,239,356 EEPs."

BH: "Why those magic numbers?"

CM: "We'll see in a few moments. I'll quote the relevant passages from post #20:"
CM: "No need for a spreadsheet; algebra and fifteen seconds will suffice."
DB: "But the units are wrong! The ratio of the masses, 1:1,836, is a dimensionless number, but the ratio of area to volume has dimensions of inverse length!"

CM: "Exactly correct. And that's why this computation is wrong, as so often happens when amateurs finally start putting numbers on their stories. I do offer a way out, though."

DB: "How?"

CM: "Consider a proton to be made up of M EEPs and an electron to be made up of N EEPs. If the EEPs all have equal mass, and binding energy does not enter in, which I realize is a bit of wishful thinking, then M/N = 1836. Let the proton have radius R and the EEP a radius of r. Then if a proton is put together out of M EEPs with no spaces or overlap (possibly another bit of wishful thinking) then M = (4/3 pi R³)/(4/3 pi r³) = (R/r)³. Now let us imagine trying to put N EEPs on the surface of this proton. The area of a great circle of an EEP would be 4 pi r², so N of these squeezed together on the surface, again ignoring gaps and overlaps would be N = (4 pi R²)/(4 pi r²) = (R/r)². So finally 1836 = M/N = (R/r), that is the radius of the proton must be 1836 times the radius of an EEP if the mass of the EEPs on the surface of the proton is to add up to the mass of the electron.

CM: "Knowing that the radius of the proton is about 1.3x10^-15 m then tells us the radius of an EEP. Of course this is still numerology and there is precious little physical content in it."

BH: "Amen!"

CM: "After this sidebar, I'd like to get back to discussing post #2."

To be continued ...

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

CM's dialog is good and I want to participate by putting in emphasis here and there.

ISUEEP5-13-07

We must always keep the following in mind when talking about the ISU and the EEP.

It is not practical to think of a universe containing one EEP, but if there was just one, would it expand forever as its tiny quantum amount of energy spread thinner and thinner or would it simply expand and contract by itself in empty space?

I think it would be the latter. If so would each expansion be fulfilling some finite relationship as to full expansion and each contraction reaching some limit as to its own internal density? I think so, and I think that the full expansion and full contraction would have specific limits and would define the space that one EEP could occupy if allowed to fully expand and contract. If so we could assign a constant to the fully expanded size and a constant to the fully contracted size, and assign a function to the pulsing by using a time factor for each full pulse cycle.

It is not practical to think of a universe containing so many EEPs that they could not expand at all. They would be locked in their contracted state and could never have enough space to expand. Even if while in the locked state they had potential to expand they would have no space to expand in. The value of that potential would eventually be derived from the math of the pulsing EEP if it could be quantified, and I think it can be.

Each of the above two cases is an extreme of energy density. One EEP expanding and contracting may only need a tiny amount of empty space to exist and fully pulse representing the lowest possible energy density, while a universe of fully locked EEPs that could not expand at all would have the highest possible energy density.

Energy density of space is the number of EEPs divided by the volume of space that they occupy.

Lets us explore the energy density possibilities that are between those two extremes.

Let us take first a “low energy density environment” where all of the EEPs can fully expand and contract in their own space, there is even room to add more EEPs before you begin to get some overlap. And let us define the term overlap to simply mean that there are too many EEPs in a given space to allow them all to fully expand and contract with intruding on each others required allotment of space. In this low energy density environment there is no overlap.

Let us take next a perfectly “equalized energy density environment” where all of the EEPs can fully expand and contract in their own space, but if you add one more EEP there will begin to be some overlap. This energy density of space (EDS), with complete freedom for each EEP, and yet with the maximum EEPs allowed without overlap we will call the equalized energy density. This is the perfect EDS for an EEP that likes companionship but wants its own space; the perfectly equalized energy density of space.

Not only is this perfect for the comfort loving EEPs, this is the energy density that space seeks to achieve. It is the perfect background. Now don’t take me literally, I am not suggesting that EEPs or space have a mind of their own; I am speaking figuratively. The perfect background is the energy density that allows this perfect relationship between all EEPs and the space that they occupy.

Next let us take an energy density of space that has too many EEPs to allow them each to fully expand and contract in their own sufficient space, but that does not cause them all to be locked so that they can never expand at all. They are only compressed to some degree and go on pulsing with only minor inconvenience.

Just to define that landscape in the most general parameters, this would be termed a high energy density of space that causes there to be some degree of compression at all times. The term compression means that none of the EEPs can fully expand, and before they can fully contract their space is intruded upon by an adjacent EEP and they can never fully contract without intrusion. They are slightly compressed.

Up to this point we have discussed five different energy densities of space: One EEP alone in space, so many EEPs that they can only exist if they are locked in their contracted position, a low energy density environment, the ideal energy density of space, and a moderately high energy density of space.

I think the universe, the greater universe in the ISU, has a high energy density on that scale. And I think that the universe has always existed and has always had this high energy density. High energy density forces matter to exist. The proportion of matter to energy density of space is determined by how high the average energy density of the greater universe is.

The matter that exists is made up of the excess EEPs over and above the ideal background of perfectly "equalized energy density" described above.

This may have covered already ... if so, could you please point to the post(s) where it was?

In the ISU idea, what is the equation relating the acceleration of photons to "gravity"?

If photons "can be accelerated by gravity", then your idea requires replacing (or trashing) the theory of Relativity (both Special and General), right?

How does an idea become mainstream?

Certainly not by the mechanism you summarise here!

You need to get it published, in a relevant peer-reviewed journal ... and that would be just the first step in your idea becoming mainstream.

It seems you've sorta covered gravity, in this thread, and along the way electromagnetism crept in, via your speculations on the charge of an EEP.

Let's see if you've actually covered electromagnetism, in a semi-classical way ...

What, in the ISU/EEP idea, is a photon?

How, in the ISU/EEP idea, does electromagnetism 'work'? As in, is it a force? (if so, how does it arise, what are its fundamental characteristics?) If not, what is it?

For gravity, what is its speed of propagation, in the ISU/EEP idea?

Which of the relevant equivalence principles, at the heart of GR, does the ISU/EEP idea say are wrong (or need re-stating)?

Going a bit further, perhaps beyond the scope of this thread, what are the weak and strong (nuclear) forces, in the ISU/EEP idea?

In particular, how many EEPs to a neutrino?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid This may have covered already ... if so, could you please point to the post(s) where it was?

I don’t have that equation.
Replacing GR or trashing GR may not be the right words. In my response to you on another thread I said, “These ideas have to be considered speculation, but it is responsible speculation that would change GR if true. It might not change the accuracy of the GR predictions and EFEs, but with the existence of a greater universe with different energy density environments (consisting of arenas like I predict), GR would have to be revised, and space time would have to be reconsidered.

Photon mass is a discussion that has to take place. The only place that I mention it is where you picked up the quote from my earlier post. But in the ISU, anything that forms from the energy density of space is denser than the energy density of the space from which it forms. Therefore anything that travels through the energy density of space will follow the energy density fluctuations (low energy density caused by mass). That includes photons.

However photons differ in that they don’t exert gravity themselves like other mass that is composed of atoms. It is the electron/proton relationship that is responsible for gravity and the photon does not have that relationship. Therefore mass is accelerated in a gravitational field because mass is both affected by and exerts gravity. A photon is affected by a gravitation field because a gravitational field is a low energy density fluctuation surrounding mass that causes the path of photons to follow it like “curved” space, but photons do not contribute any curvature themselves and so they pass through the gravitational well in a straighter path.

I see. Thank you. I thought I could just declare it, NOT .

That post was to demonstrate that I was not getting and responses and I was pretending that in the abscence of responses my content must be OK. I was kidding.

Let me say this here, I have not covered electromagnetism.
A photon is a packet of EEPs emitted by an electron.
I have only just figured out a rudimentary way of quantifing the energy of an EEP. That calculation was the result of a bottom up approach to describing how matter would form from the energy density of space when that density reached the ideal density for matter formation. I am at the point in the specifics of matter formation where a photon is being emitted from an electron for the first time after the hydrogen atom has formed from the energy density of space. I have not even thought through what the emission of the photon does to the atom the emits it. I guess it imparts rotation in space but I'm not there yet.
I have given that some thought. I can't tell you in meters per second but I am thinking that the shift in EEPs due to gravity fast. I don't see that it is related to the speed of light though. I just don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.

There is an energy density differential caused by the formation of the proton. The formation of the proton occurs as EEPs become synchronized and join together to pulse alternatively. When they become synchronized there is space vacated that causes an energy density differential between the vacated space and the energy density of the surrounding background. That differential still exists when the proton has completed forming and is the reason why EEPs swarm the proton. The swarming results in the formation of an electron which I predict has a one for one relationship between the number of EEPs in the electron and the number of EEPs on the surface of the proton.

That energy differential is what holds the electron to the proton. I haven't tried to analyze that in regard to weak and strong (nuclear) forces. I also have not built atoms bigger that hydrogen using the bottom up approach.
The number of EEPs in the electron and proton that I predicted are determined by this so called bottom up process. This is the lowest of energy environments, long before stars form, and early in the process of photon generation that extracts energy from the background and adds it to matter. Neutrons don't even exist yet though I predict that they form in the first round of hydrogen stars.

Neutrinos probably form from the collapse of the first hydrogen stars but I have not gotten that far in my bottom up approach.

Right now, where I stand in the bottom up approach is at the point that the young new matter is heating up from the proton emissions due to gravity, i.e. the photons that are emitted by atoms perpetuate the low energy density surrounding mass. Gravity is the response of mass to the low energy density surrounding mass. Mass tends to move toward the low energy density path through space. The lowest energy density path is a straigh line between masses. This tends to cause mass to move into the gravitational wells of other mass.

In an earlier Bogie-Nereid-Bogie triad of posts, in this thread, I learned that you were joking.

Are you joking now too?

I mean, take a look at this Bogie post, from earlier in this thread (my bold):Perhaps I misunderstood, big time ... what does "The electrical charge of the EEP = -4.20260913 × 10-28 coulombs" mean?

In particular, in this phrase, what is the meaning of "electrical charge"?

In the ISU/EEP idea, what are positrons?

In particular, how many EEPs go to make up a positron?

What happens in (electron-positron) pair production (according to the ISU/EEP idea)?

What happens in electron-positron annihilation (in thie ISU/EEP idea)?

In the ISU/EEP idea, can photons be emitted by positrons? by protons?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid In an earlier Bogie-Nereid-Bogie triad of posts, in this thread, I learned that you were joking.

Is this where you are referring to where you learned I was joking?
The infinite reach of gravity in the ISU

You can see I was kidding about declaring it mainstream; the joke being as if just by saying it, that made it so. That is what I was kidding about.

I wouldn’t say that I covered electromagnetism by saying the flow of EEPs that I refer to is like an electrical current. The suggestion is that because the flow of EEPs is initiated by the energy density differential surrounding the proton that it is like the flow of electrical current.

Am I wrong to make a comparison between an electrical current and the flow of EEPs that is due to an energy density differential?

That is the electrical charge of an electron divided by the number of EEPs in the electron at rest from my earlier calculations.
It is an effort to compare gravity as I describe it to an electrical current, i.e. to make a comparison of the electrical charge of the electron to that of the EEP in that comparison. It compares the flow of EEPs that cause gravity to the flow of electrons that cause electricity.

My description of the formation of the hydrogen atom and the generation of photons as part of the flow of gravity takes place in a very low energy environment. Positrons are the product of high energy physics that I have not addressed in my posts.
I don’t know.

I did say that the electron at rest contains 381,239,356 EEPs.

I don’t know if it is possible to have a positron are rest, is it? I’m not sure of how your positrons are created put I think you are talking about producing them in high energy experiments. I haven’t addressed high energy physics in my posts.
I haven’t addressed that reaction in my posts. And I don’t know.
I haven’t addressed that reaction either.
I haven’t addressed the high energy physics that produces positrons. I am using a bottom up approach that starts at the low energy end of physics.

Some clarifications then please:

1) your post, which I quoted, intended to make 'gravity as (electrical) current' an analogy (despite what you actually wrote in it)?

2) In the ISU/EEP idea, there is no relationship between photons and electrical charge?

3) introducing calculations of the charge on an EEP, in that post, was not intended to have any relevance to 'gravity as a current' (other than that both involve some kind of 'flow')?

4) Other than 'flow', from some kind of higher (density) region (or state?) to a lower one, in what respect(s) is it legitimate to use the 'gravity as current' analogy?

For example, charge carriers (both positive and negative)? generation of gravitational radiation (due to accelerating charges)? existence of a 'gravitomagnetic' force (due to special relativistic 'frames of reference')?

Positrons, in standard physics, are merely the antimatter counterpart to electrons.

They are generated naturally, in some radioactive decays, and in relatively modest energy particle collisions (the rest mass of the positron is the same as that of the electron).

In this respect, your "description of the formation of the hydrogen atom and the generation of photons as part of the flow of gravity" is equally applicable to positrons (and anti-protons and anti-hydrogen); the energies are the same.
As I said, positrons are anti-electrons; you can produce 'cold' positrons relatively easily ...

So, an obvious question, from what you've posted so far: why isn't the universe filled with equal quantities of hydrogen and anti-hydrogen, given what you have written so far in this thread?

To Nereid regarding merging ISU threads

I'm not saying we should do this but I want to know if it would be possible to merge the two active ISU threads into one new thread called "Combining the new ISU content threads" and close the two existing threads?

I would answer the existing questions in the new thread.

If so, then let's discuss the 30 day clock.

Could it be reset to 30 days to allow for us to work out wording on the possibilities that the ISU says would impact the mainstream, and to specify what degree of responsible speculation that I can claim in regard to those possibilities?

Such a thread would organize and present in one place the central ideas of the ISU and the EEP, give a qualitative narrative that encompasses the ISU/EEP concept, offer my rudimentary quantification of the EEP with comments pointing out the shortcomings of that quantification, and offer the aspects of the EEP that may be testable.

Included in that narrative would be an acknowledgement on my part of the lack of concrete content that is needed to determine the merit of the ideas, but also containing a statement that fairly presents to the community the role of individual's ideas like the ISU/EEP in the process of advancing science. Such a statement would highlight that those ideas would be advanced by the scientific community only if the community thinks they have merit. Any such advancement that may occur is a future event and we can't say that it will or it will not occur, but that the scientific community will determine that over time.

This would wrap up the ISU to date. I would only propose new threads that advance the quantitative aspects of the bottom up approach related to the EEP. When I have quantitative content to add I might include a minor amount of qualitative wording intended to state what could be called “responsible speculation” for consideration by the scientific community directly related to the new quantitative content. No flowery narratives.

Quick reply: the '30-day clock' is relentless ... as I understand it, it's a mindless app which, daily, checks ATM threads and if it finds any >30 days' old, closes them.

AFAIK, there is no 'manual over-ride'; certainly there are no 'mod tools' (that I know of) which can do anything about it ... so for that, please send Fraser a PM.

If you (still) wish this, and the other ISU ATM thread, to be closed, then just ask a mod (via PM) and it shall be done.

For myself, I'd like to see an answer to my questions concerning the extent to which the 'gravity as current' analogy was intended to be taken (not far, I guess), and also why positrons (and anti-protons) couldn't be treated in the same way as electrons (and protons), in your 'bottom up' construction ...

Wouldn't an ATMer asking for a concession be the last thing we need to bother Fraser with? Let me address the request to the Moderators. On the basis of my most recent post, can I merge the two ISU threads into an new thread with a new start date of today, and close the other two ISU/EEP threads.
I will answer them promptly as always. Hardly a day ever goes by between a question and my answer. I would like to answer them on the new thread if the mods approve it.

I responded to that comment in my last post where I noted the use of the term “like”. I said, “I wouldn’t say that I covered electromagnetism by saying the flow of EEPs that I refer to is like an electrical current. The suggestion is that because the flow of EEPs is initiated by the energy density differential surrounding the proton that it is like the flow of electrical current.”

“Am I wrong to make a comparison between an electrical current and the flow of EEPs that is due to an energy density differential?”

Now let’s pause here a moment. Can I assume that you did not want to get into a discussion; otherwise you would have answered that question? Is there something wrong from your perspective about answering a direct question from me that is related to your post? You have done the same thing before and I just don't understand your approach.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dialog “No response to bogies related question.”

In the post that you refer to I said, “Gravity is the flow of EEPs from the energy density of space, through the atom and out as photons.”

This was bottom up content that was not just stuck out there. It was developed in sequential fashion using the bottom up approach, not out of the blue.

Then I said, “This is like an electrical current flowing from the energy density of space, through the atom and out of the atom in the form of photons. The atom generates this current”.

The use of the word current was continuing the analogy, not a proclamation that gravity was electromagnetism. In the bottom up approach, it is what it is. The bottom up approach is unassuming as to how the logical sequence compares to the mainstream
.I don’t understand the question. I have said how the photon is generated from the energy density of space via the electron in the sequential logic that I presented on matter formation. I didn’t address the electrical charge of the photon.
The calculations were laid out in detail and in the context of comparing values that the mainstream has assigned to the electron, and extrapolating those values on the basis of the number of EEPs in the electron in my first rudimentary estimates. Since the electron is said to have a charge, then I was implying that the EEP would have a fractional charge. I didn’t address that charge beyond there.
That is the extent of it as far as I have developed it. That is where an am now. The bottom up process will continue from there.
Good examples of areas that the bottom up approach can address but has not yet addressed.

This one's easy ... What I have written so far has been that matter forms from the energy density of space when the correct energy density is reached.

Let me go over it: The expansion of the energy density continues until the ideal energy density for matter formation is achieved. This is the energy density of space (EDS) that allows the individual EEPs to sufficiently express their expansion and contraction. Sufficient pulsing results in an energy environment that favors EEP combining.

The combing of EEPs occurs when they become synchronized. Synchronization is achieved when a fully contracted EEP finds itself adjacent to a fully expanded EEP, a condition that can not occur when EEP overlap is too high. Synchronized EEPs are merged into the same space, one expanding in that space while one contracts from that space, held together by their tiny individual energy density fluctuations as they pulse in alternate phases. Synchronization causes a migration from chaos to order. As more synchronization occurs, the more orderly becomes the use of space by synchronized EEPs. Space is thus freed up or vacated by the jostling that results in synchronized groupings of EEPs.

Vacated space causes an energy density differential between that empty space and the EEPs that make up the energy density of the surrounding space. In fact empty space is the ultimate energy density differential and EEPs swarm to fill it even at the lowest ranges of EDS. This means that individual EEPs from the background are squeezing into the vacated space which provides the synchronized grouping of EEPs continual access to unsynchronized EEPs and the synchronized group grows as each niche is filled by a willing EEP pressed in by the “weight” of the swarming EEPs.

The proton is the first stable particle that forms from this grouping process. The swarming of the proton continues as it is still surrounded by this zone of vacated space perpetuated as EEPs are taken up into the forming proton.

Once the stable proton exists the swarm surrounding it forms an electron, a concentrated cloud of EEPs still attempting to find a niche in the proton but rejected by the proton and captured in the protons vacated space.

The rejected EEPs overfill the vacated space and are forced to slough off some of the excess energy back into and against the flow of the swarm. The excess energy builds up until the pressure in the swarm exceeds the “weight” of the swarm and a packet of EEPs is forced from the cloud in a discrete packet of EEPs called a photon. The force of the ejection from the electron causes the proton to travel at the speed of light attesting to the huge potential of the energy differential caused by the tiny zone of vacated space surrounding the proton at the instant that it stabilized.

This process of matter formation causes hydrogen to form abundantly and almost simultaneously across the entire expanse making a homogeneous and isotropic environment of hydrogen atoms across the entire expanse.

There you have it again. No anti-hydrogen to be found in the early stage of matter formation in the bottom up approach.

I did go on the make my first estimates of the size and energy of the EEP after this sequential development in the bottom up process.

Perhaps my understanding of English is at the root.

In post #26 of this thread, you wrote (my bold):

"Understanding the infinite reach of gravity as a flow of electrical current:"

(Note: no "like" in this statement)

"This makes gravity an electrical current that has an infinite reach across space that contains energy density in the form of EEPs, i.e. all space."

(Note: no "like" in this statement)

You concluded the post as follows: "My only way out is for you to embarrass me with the obvious that I have missed in this bottom up process of trying to understand the universe."

Your entire presentation, of the ISU/EEP idea, is done with only words - not a number*, equation, any math, etc in sight.

Ergo, the only thing what any outsider can use to address your idea is the actual words - whether salad or not - that you wrote.

For avoidance of doubt, I freely acknowledge that I may not have understood the words you actually wrote.

I have already stated that, perhaps, you had intended to present an ATM idea in which 'gravity as (electrical) current' is merely an analogy.

Nonetheless, I would like some clarification.

*With the exception of the number of EEPs per electron, and the charge per EEP.

In the ISU/EEP idea, what is the distinction between "matter" and anti-matter?

In the ISU/EEP idea, how does anti-matter contribute to "the energy density of space"?What is the difference between "combining" and "combing"?What - quantitatively - constitutes a "too high" condition?What are the characteristic measures of these "tiny individual energy density fluctuations"?

E.g. by time, by density, by energy (scale).What are the characteristic scales of this "synchronization"?Why does this process prefer matter over anti-matter?

How is it that the this first stable particle is not the electron? the positron? the electron neutrino? the photon? the electron anti-neutrino? the muon neutrino? the muon anti-neutrino? the muon? the anti-muon?

and so on ...

After all, these are all "stable" (apart from the last two).

Perhaps the disconnect is "stable": what does this mean, in the ISU/EEP idea?In what way(s) is it illegitimate, or illegal, to substitute "positron" for "electron" and "anti-proton" for "proton" in the above?Sorry, I don't 'get it' at all.

There is nothing - that I can see - in your word salad that explains why anti-hydrogen should not be as abundant and hydrogen ...Are the EEPs matter? or anti-matter? or something else??

Yes, it was an analogy.

I do find I am embarrassed but not becase you have embarrassed me with the obvious that I have missed in this bottom up process of trying to understand the universe, but because I actaully said that to get some response, any response. It was a post that was "way out there", a challenge intended to get someone to acknowledge that I had even made a post. Funny how things come back around.

So, if it was never intended to be anything more than an analogy, and yet, as you wrote it, it was not ... and if there is nothing more to your ISU/EEP idea than what you wrote - in words - in your posts, then what basis does any BAUT member have for even starting to form questions to ask (let alone mount serious challenges)?

In the bottom up sequence I haven’t encountered any anti-matter. The only anti-matter that I know about is the result of high energy physics. I haven’t addressed that.
I don’t want to claim anything about the bottom up process that I don’t fully understand. I understand how the hydrogen atom forms from the bottom up process but I don’t understand why it has to be composed of smaller unstable particles. This is not meant to say that these smaller unstable particles are not found repeatedly in high or moderately high energy experiments.

I don’t know why those particles can exist in the high energy environment and not in the low energy environment where I am working. Obviously they can exist at high energy environments and I bet that they are themselves composed of EEPs.

This process will take time. Working alone I predict that I will never accomplish anything the I am sure of at the high energy level until I have worked out a few missing details (that is an understatement meant to be humorous).

The positron and all anti-particles are products of moderately high, as you say, energy physics. Yes they can appear naturally as products of stars, star collapse, novas, etc. That is part of the ISU nucleosynthesis that I plan to address in the coming years. But those are moderate to high energy circumstances.

Let’s say that when you smash a proton at high energy it breaks into semi-stable pieces that form the internal structure of the proton. That internal structure was never separate stable particles before that as far as I know, and the components of that internal structure are not stable in and of themselves when released at high energy, but because the proton formed initially under remote and inconclusive circumstances from which we can only and must conclude were very sound construction techniques, we can say that in low energy environment, far removed from the high energy circumstances that can smash a proton, the proton is almost indestructible and proton decay in such and environment is the rarest of events if they decay at all.

But when smashed why wouldn’t there be semi-stable particles that may survive the collision and exist on their own for a finite period of time. Why wouldn’t those surviving particles exhibit relative movement to each other, some spinning one way, others spinning in other ways, a sort of repeatable chaos with similar results each time? If we were able to repeat the high energy experiments and see similar results then we would conclude that there were internal components to the proton that were instrumental in the initial formation of the proton. Only those components don’t exist in the low energy environment and the proton seems indestructible in that same environment.

Oops, make that combining.
That is a reference to energy density.

It is not practical to think of a universe containing one EEP, but if there was just one, would it expand forever as its tiny quantum amount of energy spread thinner and thinner or would it simply expand and contract by itself in empty space?

I think it would be the latter. If so would each expansion be fulfilling some finite relationship as to full expansion and each contraction reaching some limit as to its own internal density, a self-contained tiny quantum increment of pulsing energy? I think so, and I think that the full expansion and full contraction would have specific limits and would define the space that one EEP could occupy if allowed to fully expand and contract. If so we could assign a constant to the fully expanded size and a constant to the fully contracted size, and assign a function to the pulsing by using a time factor for each full pulse cycle. I am not there yet.

It is just as impractical to think of a universe containing so many EEPs that they could not expand at all. They would be locked in their contracted state and could never have enough space to expand. Even if while in the locked state they had potential to expand they would have no space to expand in. The value of that potential would eventually be derived from the math of the pulsing EEP if it could be quantified, and I think it can be but I am not there yet either.

Each of the above two cases is an extreme of energy density. One EEP expanding and contracting may only need a tiny amount of empty space to exist and fully pulse representing the lowest possible energy density, while a universe of fully locked EEPs that could not expand at all would have the highest possible energy density. Both extremes are impossibilities but they mark off the theoretical limits of the energy density of space.

Energy density of space is the number of EEPs divided by the volume of space that they occupy.

But matter cannot form when the energy density is too high. The expanding energy density starts out too high for matter to from. The expansion of the energy density continues until the ideal energy density for matter formation is achieved. This is the energy density of space (EDS) that allows the individual EEPs to sufficiently express their expansion and contraction. Sufficient pulsing results in an energy environment that favors EEP combining. I can’t quantify that density but I think I will be able to eventually.
I don’t have the measures. They are the unifying particle and so they are the tiniest of all. They expand and contract and that is why they have their own built in energy density fluctuation. Two adjacent EEPs become joined by this fluctuation as they pulse alternatly.
I don’t have those values.
I don’t know. I have not heard that anti-matter exists except as mentioned in my response above about high energy physics. Why should they exist in the bottom up sequence that I have related to you?
Is the term “the this” the same as either “the” or “this” at the readers discretion?
The proton is stable because it exists in low energy conditions, and doesn’t decay (rare decay suggested in some readings). The sequence I related explains why the first particle is the proton. As I mentioned there may be unstable particles in the proton that form during this bottom up process but the swarming of the growing group results in the proton. Maybe those other particles form during the process but because they naturally combine to form a proton I have not recognized them along the way.
I related the bottom up process step by step. I mentioned above that I the anti-particles need high energy physics not available during this initial matter formation period.
I mentioned above that I the anti-particles need high energy physics not available during this initial matter formation period.

They are the particles that make up the energy density of space. They combine to form particles. Matter forms from the energy density of space when the EDS reaches the proper level. Matter then forms abundantly and almost simultaneously across the entire expanse.

Bogie, neither the positron nor the anti-proton decays ... in terms of your definitions, they are as stable as the proton (or electron, or photon).

Both particles exist "in low energy conditions" ... as do the electron anti-neutrino, the electron neutrino, the muon anti-neutrino, the muon neutrino, the tau neutrino, the tau anti-neutrino, the photon, ...

As far as I can tell, from what you have written, there is nothing to prevent any of these (non-electron, non-proton) particles forming ... in particular, there is nothing in "[t]he sequence [you] related" which seems to preclude any of these other particles being "the first particle".

What did I miss?

What compelling reason (other than that you haven't looked at positrons and anti-protons yet) is there, in the ISU/EEP idea, for "the first particle" to not be the anti-proton?

High quality astronomical observations, by the million, are consistent with the early universe being a (very) high energy (density) thing.

Yet, in the ISU/EEP idea, "high energy physics [is] not available during [the] initial matter formation period".

Wrt the timeline of any Big Bang theory (a.k.a. LCDM cosmology), when was this "initial matter formation period"?

From your bottom-up analysis, when did neutrinos (and anti-neutrinos) form?

How were they able to form without "high energy physics"?In the ISU/EEP idea, are photons "matter"?

What about neutrinos? anti-neutrinos?

What is "the proper level"?

What does "almost", in "almost simultaneously", mean?

When you say they exist in low energy conditions do you mean that they originate in low energy conditions or they originate in high energy conditions and survive from there and enter and survive in low energy conditions after deceleration?

Or perhaps you mean that they are produced here on Earth in cloud chambers, but wait, don’t you need a cosmic ray or an accelerator. Oh oh, aren’t those pesky cosmic rays from outer space. What could their source be …? Maybe stars? Well maybe if the star collapses or explodes or collides with another star or … but wait, aren’t those high energy events? Well yeah, maybe that is why bogie keeps mentioning it.
The reason the first particle stopped accumulating EEPs as the process of synchronization occurred is that the surface of the growing particle got to the point that no new EEPs could synchronize with the grouping. The surface was completely impenetrable and no additional EEPs could be added. That could be the proton or the anti-proton.

If it was the proton then my bottom up has formed a proton. If it was an anti-proton then my bottom up has formed an anti-proton. I can’t tell them apart if there exists only one of the two types can I?

But which ever type they are, the other type is now where to be found until high energy physics occur.

I call them protons because in your lingo, the anti-proton is the product of high energy physics and so wouldn’t it be odd if I thought that they we anti-protons?

The infinite reach of gravity in the ISU

I did mention this in post #12:
Protons consist of smaller particles and there is no proton constituent that is stable enough to exist by itself in nature until you get to the unifying particle itself. Any proton constituents that might be extracted under high energy from the proton are themselves composed of unifying particles. The possible configurations of unstable groupings of EEPs that might never-the-less always appear in high energy experiments does not mean that they appear naturally in a low energy environment.

The infinite reach of gravity in the ISU

The link above is to a post that gives my version of the proton formation. That post and the one before it really answer a lot of questions, and I’m sure they raise a lot of questions. Take a look.

The infinite reach of gravity in the ISU

This post got into some detail that explains more of my thinking.

All in all, the proton has to be the first bottom up particle any way I think it, even after you have encouraged me to look at many alternative possibilities. The answer always seems to point to the proton first, then the electron, then the photons, then the hydrogen stars and then the high energy particles; then thermalization and the CMBR, then heavier slower burning stars from the “dust” of the dead hydrogen stars, then galactic structure. I know this is not the BBT nucleosynthesis and that is why I refer to it as ISU nucleosynthesis.

In ISU idea is a local concentrated energy phase. There is a local increase of the density and then local expansion when the energy is supplied from outside of the local concentration..

Yes. Read the next reply to Nereid's questions.