Why the perfect background of the ISU isn’t luminiferous aether either.

This thread adds content about the red shift, in particular the gravitational component of the red shift, and the related topic of why the energy density of space does not act as a medium for the propagation of light waves. The new ISU content introduced on the recent Infinite Spongy Universe thread, “The Infinite Reach of Gravity in the ISU”, has been added to the conveniently recapped and sequenced list of events that characterize the ISU in post #2 on this thread. Please note that the recap in post #2 includes the quantification of the EEP presented on the linked thread.

Here is a Glossary of terms used to discuss the ISU from an previous thread.

The content about the gravitational component of the red shift and why the energy density of space does not act as a medium for the propagation of light waves is covered in the third post on this new thread.

If you are already familiar with the ISU from “The Infinite Reach of Gravity in the ISU” thread you can skip this recap, and go the new content in post #3.

For those not familiar with it, the ISU is about empty space that has always existed and has never been empty. That sounds like a paradox but it simply means that space itself can be empty, but it is not. It contains energy referred to as the energy density of space.
It is inescapable that reasoned and responsible speculation about pre-conditions to the big bang takes place. I am conducting such a process when I talk about the ISU. To some, a little speculation is just as bad as speculation about little green men. The ISU presentation is reasoned and responsible speculation about what the universe could be like if it was composed solely of infinitesimal indestructible elementary energy particles that have always existed.

There is a proposed testable aspect of the EEP discussed near the end of a previous ISU thread. Such a test, if devised and successful would bring the ISU into the realm of science. Acceptance still awaits a repeatable test proving the existence of the unifying particle and a peer reviewed paper about how that particle accounts for the energy density fluctuations that characterize the Infinite Spongy Universe.

That post lead to a thread about “Isolating Protons” which ended with this post: http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=953526&postcount=10

A test may very well be devised, just probably not in my lifetime. The expected discovery of the unifying particles that make up the sole content the ISU could be detected by such a test.

Post #2 lists the events from the referenced ISU thread conveniently recapped and sequenced for you right up to the point where the new content is to be added.

Post #2

To grasp the ISU you need to follow the rational and responsible thought process conveyed in the following sequence.

In BBT there was hot, high energy plasma sometimes referred to as a “soup” of matter and energy that expanded from some unmentioned but implied extremely dense origin, a singularity. BBT uses the plasma as the source of “matter”, i.e. in BBT matter comes from the plasma. In the ISU which is composed only of unifying energy particles, matter forms from those particles when the ideal energy density is reached and is negated back to unifying particles when energy density gets too high for matter to exist. The negation of matter back into EEPs in the crunch marks the beginning of a huge energy density fluctuation that is equivalent to the Big Bang in BBT.

The nature of the unifying particle that makes up the energy density of space in the ISU is not fully appreciated in BBT. The ISU predicts the existence of a greater universe within which the event that is equivalent to BBT’s big bang occurs, i.e. there is a “before and beyond” the big bang.

Some, if not most professionals say we have a perfectly good working theory to account for time and matter from the instant after the big event until now, but glaring in their absence are the source and cause of the big bang, the cause of gravity, the cause of galactic structure, and the cause of accelerating expansion. In addition, the best end result in BBT is complete entropy, a one time event that just hasn’t happened yet, and never will in the ISU.

All of that is solved in the ISU by the existence of the simple pulsing unifying particle, the elementary energy particle (EEP).

First estimates to quantify the EEP were made in the “Infinite Reach of Gravity” thread and are recapped as follows:

EEPs in electron 381,239,356
EEPs in proton 699,955,457,517
Proton/electron EEPs - ratio 1836
radius of proton in average EEP diameters 5508
EEP average diameter 9.1 x 10^-20
EEP rest energy 5.71 x 10^-27 joules
EEP electrical charge -4.20260913 × 10-28 coulombs
EEPs have positive energy Electrical charge of the EEP is assigned a negative value


The EEP forms the perfect background of the universe by occupying all space.

Space is infinite and the greater universe encompasses all space.

All space contains EEPs.

The universe is composed of only EEPs.

EEPs are indestructible and have always existed.

The number of EEPs in any volume of space makes up the energy density of that space (energy divided by volume equals energy density).

The energy density of a volume of space can fluctuate.

Matter forms when there is just the right energy density in a volume of space.

Matter is composed of EEPs and forms from the energy density of space.

The average energy density of space in the greater universe is high enough that some EEPs must be in the form of matter at all times.

The greater universe is characterized by a balance between energy density of space and the matter that forms from the energy density of space.

The fluctuations in the energy density of space occur because matter forms and gets negated back to energy density of space in a process of “energy to matter to energy” that takes place in “finite arenas” of space.

Gravity is matter dependent and gravity only exists because matter exists.

Gravity causes matter to attract matter giving matter its weight, and weight equals mass times the acceleration due to gravity.

When matter forms gravity begins and masses are attracted to each other.

All of the matter in the universe would collapse into a big crunch if it wasn’t for the critical capacity of a big crunch that causes finite arenas of energy and matter to form and then to burst.

Bursting big crunches keep the entire universe from collapsing under its own gravity.

EEPs cause the crunches to burst as they are negated from the matter in the crunch under the compression of gravity that is so great that matter cannot exist and the EEPs emerge as the crunch releases a ball of nearly infinite energy density into surrounding space.

Energy density of space is self regulating and as the nearly infinite energy density emerges it expands into the lower energy density of the space surrounding the crunch.

Since crunches are finite due to critical capacity and since the greater universe and the energy in the greater universe is infinite there are an infinite number of arenas where finite crunches are forming and bursting at any point in time.

Our observable universe is one of those bursts; one of the infinite number of expanding bursts that exist across the greater universe at all times, each in its own arena.

All bursts expand, and as they expand the energy density of the ball of high energy density is eventually reduced to the point that there is just the right energy density across that arena or expanding volume of space for matter to form.

Matter forms abundantly and almost simultaneously across the entire volume of each expanding arena.

Our expanding universe is no different and matter formation in our observable universe has occurred and progressed to the current point where galaxies are scattered across the entire expanse.

Galaxies form in the expanding volume of energy density in space and are separated from each other over time as the expansion progresses.

The expansion caused by the equalization of the energy density of the burst with the energy density of the greater universe causes galaxies to all appear to be moving away from each other regardless of the position of the observer within the expanding arena.

EEPs pulse by expanding and contracting under there own perpetual power.

When the ideal energy density exists for matter formation, the pulsing is fully expressed and each pulse causes a tiny fluctuation of energy density associated with the space that each individual EEP occupies.

The fluctuation is a pulse of low energy density followed by a pulse of high energy density in a continual repetition as the EEP expands and contracts.

The ideal energy density of pulsing EEPs in space permits EEPs to join together and pulse alternately in the same space forming a group.

The bigger the group of joined EEPs the bigger the low energy density that surrounds them as space is vacated around the group when the EEPs join and pulse in the same space.

The low energy density surrounding the growing group attracts more EEPs into the low energy density zone surrounding the grouping.

This swarming of the forming group by EEPs results in the first stable stage of matter formation when these groupings achieve a stable vibration.

The vibration is the result of the pulses of the individual EEPs joined in the grouping.

The stable particle comprises a proton that now has a particular vibration that the swarming EEPs cannot penetrate.

The proton is surrounded by a very nice low energy density zone when it forms.

The zone forms as a substantial volume of space in the perfect background has contributed EEPs to the now relatively small space occupied by the proton.

The vacated space comprises the low energy density zone surrounding the proton.

EEPs continue to swarm the low energy density zone surrounding the proton because they are continually trying to equalize the energy density of contiguous space, i.e. spread out evenly in the perfect background including the zone.

An electron cloud forms from a finite number of those EEPs in the low energy density zone surrounding the proton.

The electron underneath the “weight” of the continuing swarm of EEPs reaches capacity and sloughs excess EEPs in the form of a photon like a little bullet forced out of the cloud at the speed of light.

The hydrogen atom now exits and hydrogen atoms make up all of the matter and mass in the entire universe at this early stage of matter formation.

At this stage our expanding universe is an isotropic and homogeneous mass of hydrogen atoms that are all attracted to each other by their low energy density zones.

The low energy density zones around each atom are perpetuated by the swarming of EEPs and the sloughing of EEPs in the form of photons.

The cause of gravity is this flow of EEPs into mass and out of mass as photons which perpetuate the low energy density zones.

The low energy density surrounding mass would have the same effect as curved or warped space.

The difference between gravity in GR and gravity in the ISU is that there is a specific cause of low energy density zone surrounding mass in the ISU while there are only equations that define the curvature of space in GR, but no cause.

Any given volume of space at any energy density contains a “finite number” of unifying particles, so if you remove some particles from the perfect background to form a photon, then backfill occurs.

Photons take up less space than the EEPs from which they form so backfill is the movement of unifying particles into the low energy density left by the flow of unifying particles through mass and out as photons.

Since there are a finite number of unifying particles in any volume of space, the backfill is felt across the entire volume no matter how far reaching the volume and all of the EEPs in that volume of space are shifted to fill the space vacated by the formation of the new proton.

Since there are a finite number of unifying particles in any volume of space, the backfill is felt across the entire volume no matter how far reaching the volume, thus all of the EEPs in that volume of space are shifted to fill the space vacated by the formation of the new proton.

Bodies in space will move toward the path of lowest energy density, i.e. in the case of two bodies, since both are surrounded by low energy density zones that reach across any volume of space due to the “backfill” effect, the path of lowest energy density is a straight line between them.

They will ultimately tend toward each other and this tendency will eventually draw them deeper into each others “gravitational well”, hence the reach of gravity is infinite.

Gravity is at work and causes great masses of hydrogen atoms to form.

As hydrogen atoms combine due to this gravity the low energy density zone of the combined atoms equals the sum of the low energy density zone of each atom and so as mass accumulates the size of the low energy density zone increases.

Photons are continually emitted by mass as this continuous flow of EEPs into mass occurs.

Photons can be absorbed by mass and as mass absorbs photons the energy of the mass increases.

The energy of mass increases as it absorbs photons.

The surrounding hydrogen atoms that are emitting photons are continually adding to the energy of the masses of hydrogen atoms that are now forming hydrogen stars.

The energy of the photons emitted by mass increases as the energy of mass goes up and so the energy of photons emitted by the resulting hydrogen stars creates a thermal gradient of photons because photons are emitted from different depths within the stars.

The huge hydrogen stars burn quickly, collapse, explode and burn out leaving a rich temperature gradient signature in the “dust” across a now cooling and expanding expanse of the remnants of the hydrogen epoch in our arena.

The first neutrons form in the hydrogen stars as the gravity of the star forces an electron into the proton.

Heavier nuclei along with an abundance of helium and lithium form from the protons and neutrons as the first round of hydrogen stars collapse and explode.

There is a slight anisotropy in the temperature of this dust because the lives of the first round of hydrogen stars vary slightly and therefore the burn out rate varies as well.

New heavier slower burning stars will form from this dust but first there is a period of thermalization that gives rise to the cosmic microwave background radiation that we now observe.

Galactic structure began to take shape from this thermalized environment as groups of smaller stars formed from the dust of the hydrogen epoch.

The groups of smaller stars were positioned by the density of the dust from the first round of huge hydrogen stars that burned fast, collapsed, exploded and left their mark as hinted to by a pattern of anisotropy in the CMBR.

The first round of hydrogen stars and the subsequent galaxies that formed from their “dust” were all carried apart by the continued progression of the expansion of the high energy density burst into the lower energy density that surrounded the burst.

Separation of galaxies continues today and is accelerating as both expansion and the flow of gravity continues to dilute the density of EEPs across the entire expanse of our arena.

But even with this dilution the EEPs are not going to become scarce.

A means for making the first estimate of the number of EEPs in a proton is covered in the "Infinite Reach" thread.

Post #3

This thread adds content about the gravitational component of the red shift and why the energy density of space does not act as a medium for the propagation of light waves, i.e. a luminiferous aether. Various experiments using interferometers have been designed to find the aether out there that serves as the medium for the propagation of light waves but none have been successful. This post explains why that is the case in the ISU even though there is a perfect background consisting of the energy density of space.

First though, what causes the growing separation of galaxies in the first place?

When mass forms it is given momentum by the background within which it forms.

The perfect background of an arena in the ISU is expanding. Even before matter forms in an arena of the ISU, the perfect background, i.e. the energy density of space in the arena is expanding. It expands because its high energy density is in the process of being equalized with the lower energy density of the greater universe.

Matter that forms from the energy density of the background has an initial movement away from all other matter since it forms “from and within” this expanding energy density environment.

Any secondary mass that forms from that original matter (as a result of the attraction due to gravity) carries the signature of the movement that was initially imparted to the original matter.

This means stars that form in an expanding energy density environment will still be moving apart due to the initial momentum of the matter from which the stars formed. Galaxies that form will still be moving away from all other galaxies due to the initial momentum of the “dust and stars” that make up the separate galaxies.

Using galaxies as an example, the typical galaxy is therefore moving away from us. The red shift is caused by the movement of the galaxies as they separate just like in the mainstream.

The gravity component of the red shift:

However, there is also a gravitational effect or component of the red shift. Though that effect is a tiny fraction of the separation effect, the net affect of gravity on the wave length of photons traversing galactic space is measurable if there is a difference in the strength of the gravitational fields involved.

For accuracy we know that the various gravitational fields are infinite and overlap, but for this example light observed arriving in our galaxy from a distant galaxy can be said to have left the gravitational field of the emitting galaxy and entered the gravitational field of our galaxy.

If those two gravitational fields are equal the effect on the red shift is zero because the photons are red shifted when thy leave the emitting galaxy and are equally blue shifted when the entry our galaxy.

But if there is a meaningful difference in the strength of the two gravitational fields there will be a measurable effect on the amount of red shift observed, though insignificant relative to the red shift caused by the expansion component.

I point this out to establish that gravity influences photons that travel through gravitational fields.

So two effects have been pointed out; matter that forms from the energy density of space is moving apart because the energy density of space is expanding when the matter forms, and gravity which courses through the energy density of space can affect the wave length of photons.

The point I want to make is that the energy density of space does not propagate the light waves that pass through it. It simply influences the path that photons take through it to the extent that gravitational fields exist. Propagation would involve the reaction of the energy density of space to perpetuate the wave length as it passed through space. More accurately, the energy density does not “notice” the photon but the photon “notices” the gravitational fields that course through it. Gravitational fields do not have “wave length”; they are a shift in the density of the EEPs in space between the objects.

The position of every EEP in space is constantly adjusted by the gravitational fields coursing through space. On the other hand, the passing of a photon has no effect on the EEPs in the background because the photon does not exert gravity. Only gravity and expansion affect the position of individual EEPs in space.

Light beams emitted simultaneously from separate galaxies, if joined somewhere in at equidistant mid-space would show a difference in the shift in the positions of the interference fringes when measured by an interferometer; a shift equivalent to the relative difference between their respective gravitational fields.

A light beam emitted from Earth and traveling through just the Earth’s gravitational field will not show noticeable interference fringes when rejoined after being split and diverted along different and varying paths when measured by an interferometer.

These split light beams will not be affected by the energy density of the perfect background that they travel through because that background itself is unaffected by the movement of the photon which does not exert gravity. The background is however constantly responding to the movement of the Earth and the Earth’s gravitational field.

The split beams will be ever-so-slightly affected by the shape of the gravitational fields through which they pass to the extent that those gravitational fields differ over the path taken by each split of the beam.

On Earth, unlike the inter-galactic experiment I alluded to above, this effect would not be noticeable in the interference fringes when the split beams are rejoined because Earth’s gravitational field would affect both splits, and the net difference between the effects due to varying distances traveled would be ever so slight; negligible with the measuring equipment used today that eliminates most of the error.

Therefore though there is a gravitational effect as photons pass through the perfect background which consists of EEPs in the energy density of space, that perfect background in no way acts like a luminiferous aether across which light waves were once thought to be propagated.

I said something in post #3 that I think any good mainstreamer should challenge.

It was about the momentum imparted to matter as it forms in an expanding energy environment.

If you missed it: “Matter that forms from the energy density of the background has an initial movement away from all other matter since it forms “from and within” this expanding energy density environment.”

It is already in the motion of separating from other matter when it forms.

If anyone had responded I was ready to add some other comments.

Let me add that in this early expansion period gravity is much stronger than it is now after billions of years of dilution of energy density due to expansion and gravity. Remember gravity uses EEPs and converts them to photons so the energy density of EEPs in space declines as the photon energy increases.

The stronger gravity assured that the early matter, even with its separating motion, would still accumulate to form that first round of huge fast burning hydrogen stars that preceded the thermalization epoch and the subsequent galactic structure.

Wouldn't weaker gravity and initial separating movement compound into accelerating expansion over billions of years?

Are we having trouble contemplating a unifying particle and what the universe would be like if there was one. This is food for thought. This is ATM after all.

It seems you covered two 'causes' of redshift in this thread - gravitational and cosmological.

The first is well observed, in a variety of environments, and the data match the GR predictions (within the error bars).

What is the (quantitative) size of this gravitational redshift, in the ISU/EEP idea?

The second can be written, in shorthand, as 'the Hubble relationship'. It too is well constrained, now out to z~6, and includes data which lead to 'dark energy'.

What is the (quantitative) size of this cosmological redshift, in the ISU/EEP idea?

How do the two relate to each, quantitatively, in the ISU/EEP idea?

There is at least one other gravity-photon effect that is well constrained by observation (and which is also predicted by GR): the Shapiro time delay.

How does the ISU/EEP idea account for this, quantitatively?

Aether either question

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid It seems you covered two 'causes' of redshift in this thread - gravitational and cosmological.

I haven’t been able to go so far as to quantify the red shift size of the gravitational redshift.

I haven’t been able to go so far as to quantify the red shift size of either of the identified red shifts.

They relate to each other because the photons are traveling through the energy density of space, and the EEPs the make up the energy density of space are moving in response to two things. They are expanding as the energy density is being equalized with the energy density of the greater universe, and they are responding to gravity.
I haven’t been able to go so far as to quantify that effect.

The content of the thread is about how the ISU/EEP idea differs from mainstream as to causes, i.e. what causes the expansion and what causes gravity.

So to be clearer, the content in my thread is about the causes. The first attempts at quantification of the EEP included in the Infinite Reach thread where they are explained. I tell exactly on what basis the initial calculations were made and I made those calculations based on “at rest” particles. I have not used those initial values to quantify any effects that we observe in the universe.

There is no content that is falsified because I have not done that kind of quantification is there? Falsification should be focused on the content that I have provided. Do you have any questions about the various causes I have predicted?

I have found that the mainstream stops short of saying what causes the expansion. In the ISU the expansion is caused by energy density equalization taking place between the high energy density released by the burst of a big crunch and the low energy density of the greater universe surrounding the crunch. I refer to this as responsible speculation.

The separation of matter is caused by the expansion of the energy density of space as equalization takes place. Matter forms from the expanding energy density and therefore all matter is moving apart at the instant of formation. Matter formation takes place abundantly and almost simultaneously across the entire expanse when the expansion has progressed to the point where it reaches the ideal density for matter formation.

Gravity is caused by the flow of EEPs that are captured in the electron and sloughed off as photons. There is a continual process of photon sloughing that perpetuates the low energy density surrounding protons. EEPs continue to swarm that energy density differential.

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, GR would have to be revised, and space time would have to be reconsidered.

What is there to even comment on then, much less challenge?

Without even an OOM quantification, what basis is there to even ask questions (that have even a tenuous connection with the observable universe)?

There is content in all of my posts that you could comment on. You could tell me why mainstream has rejected the possibilities that I propose. If they have not addressed the ideas I propose we could discuss whether or not my speculations are responsible specutlations that the mainstream should address.

The ISU is about what the science mainstream is leaving on the table by refusing to consider preconditions to the big bang and by refusing to consider space beyond the big bang. Both the preconditions and the space beyond would change physics. Neither the preconditions nor the space beyond should be omitted from consideration and science needs to take them into consideration by amending the mainstream to say that the preconditions and space beyond would change things and here is how they might change.

This one's easy ... but of course I can only speak for myself ...

There are no "possibilities"; there is only some word salad.

When you have developed the ideas to the point where you can sketch how they are consistent with special relativity (perhaps as an 'in the limit'), the first family of particles (electrons, electron neutrinos, up and down quarks; their antimatter counterparts; photons), quantum theory, and Newtonian gravity (as a 'limit case')*, a vague outline of some possibilities may emerge.

Until then ...At one level, no one could disagree with this.

However, I'm sure you'd agree that any such amendment needs to:

1) be internally consistent

2) be consistent with well-established theories, where the relevant domains of applicability overlap

3) (above all) be consistent with relevant good observational and experimental results.

In this regard, where do the ideas you've put on the table so far stand?

IMHO:

1) haven't even started (no quantification), or cannot be shown to be inconsistent (only word salad)

2) impossible to say - a determination of 'consistency' is, at best, uncertain (how could one establish that your ideas are inconsistent with SR, for example?)

3) ditto - your ideas have no phenomenology.

*These are only meant as examples.

Speaking for myself … the phrase word salad implies to me that the user has chosen not to address the words and finds it easier to wave them off with that phrase.
If I found a way to adjust the carburetor on my car to increase miles per gallon, and I described how to do it, would you wave it off because I didn’t present any quantitative data? Or in hope that it might work would you think through the words I wrote and decide based on that review if they had merit? If you decided they didn’t have merit do you think you could put the reason you thought that into words that would convey your thoughts? Or do you just assume my words don’t have merit and dismiss them with “in my opinion they are word salad”. How am I or the readers to know that you read them and found then wanting? How do you expect to me to give up the ideas when it appears you are just waving them off without consideration?
They stand up in that regard.We don’t agree on the merits of my ideas and my approach. You are too quick to wave them off. I am too persistent in trying to get responses so I keep adding content that make sense to me, in a progressive fashion. If “A” is true then “B” is true then “C” is true, etc., without ever getting any input on “A”. If I had gotten input on “A” I could have worked on that input before going to “B”.

No one that I have seen on BAUT ATM tries harder to get responses. The harder I try the more silence I get. When someone who is important in the community waves off all of my work with two words, “word salad”, it just tells others in the community to stay away. Finally no one is willing to step up and take a shot at an exchange, repeat what I say to confirm understanding, and offer comments that relate to the content.

Only CM has ever even used the phrase “bottom up” in a post on any of my threads. I have said I am working on a bottom up analysis in almost every post on almost every thread. Does anyone under the concept of working on something from a new direction? You have to divorce yourself from everything but observation and proof. If I am talking about a unifying particle and working on what it would mean if there was such a particle, which is my bottom up approach, then I don’t try to say what is wrong with mainstream research or theory or proved hypotheses that deal in entirely different categories or at entirely different levels of energy. Things work differently when you add energy or acceleration or million dollar test equipment for that matter.

My work is baby steps. The ideas are basic, not hard at all to understand. Simple paragraphs that explain what I am doing and what conclusions I have reached. I accompany them with a simple request of content related input. I am dismayed by the word salad response; though I can see why you make that response when my posts are taken in bulk, I can not see why you let me get so much bulk without a comment for me to work with. Comments about content would avoid my conditioned response of adding more content before I get any comments.

That is my answer.

Now a general question to the community: If a unifying particle exists but we haven’t found it yet, would it make sense to work from a bottom up approach to try to figure out how it could be detected?

That is what I am doing.

Along with that, and I see the error of doing this, I have proposed sweeping impacts that finding and understanding such a particle would imply. That is why the word salad, and that is why it is so easy to wave my posts off, ignoring the unglamorous baby steps and focusing on the sweeping implications.

The baby steps are focused on the unifying particle. I start with the concept that all matter would be composed of that particle.

On that basis I see the particle having characteristics like:

“The EEP is the tiny self-contained pulsing quantum energy density fluctuation that makes up the energy density of space and that combines to form all particles and matter that exist and the pulses, displayed as expansion and contraction, provide the power source behind all of the energy of the universe.”

That is a statement of the scope of the discussion of a unifying particle. Those are the characteristics that provide the content for the bottom up approach search. This approach differs from the process of “back engineering" that is carried out by high energy physics. I make comparisons and contrasts between the two approaches all of the time.

Does such a particle exist? How can you say? You have to work form there step by step using ideas about what each characteristic means, how it would work within the constraints of what we observe in the universe around us.

If all particles were made up of unifying particle, matter would form from such a particle. That says that everything in the “soup” of the big bang would be made of such a particle or the even that the “soup” would consist of these particles and matter would form from them.

This means that the bottom up approach would differ from the BBT nucleosynthesis if the “soup” was actually unifying particles instead of a broth of various components.

If the soup was unifying particles, and if matter did not exists in the soup yet, then the accoutrements of matter, i.e. gravity and electromagnetic radiation would not be present.

In an environment of a soup of unifying particles before matter, before gravity and before EM, the soup would consist of unifying particles in space; I use the term energy density of space.

My step by step bottom up content develops like the above sequence. I have developed the sequence to the point that I have made the first estimates of the size and energy of the unifying particle. I received very few comments along the way that acknowledged what I was doing, that confirmed understanding of what I was doing or that saw any validity in the approach I was taking. The few who did contribute constructively never stuck with the development of the ideas. One comment and they were gone. A few hijacking attempts lead to extensive exchanges but those exchanges were not focused on my approach or content; they usually focused on the other individuals ideas and why mine didn’t fit with theirs. That is not unusual and I often went along because there were no real comments on the content to deal with.

When I got vocal about the lack of comments, when I kept adding more and more to the word salad without input, and when silence prevailed I was in check. My desire was to proceed but proceeding meant leaving the community further and further behind. That is how we got to where we are today.

I am hoping to regroup by having one active thread where I can start back at the beginning, relate the baby steps to the point where I am now, eliminating the word salad, and then get support from the community in this bottom up experiment.

What do you say?

01101001 posted, “Have your pet theory. But don't enter it in the dog show. It's not ready.”

OK, thanks. I know that.

This is a rhetorical question. Just how would you go about getting people to participate with you about your pet theory? Say you wanted help from a bottom up perspective meaning that even simple “known facts” must be confirmed as logical or reinvented with responsible speculation because the fundamental particle is the starting point not the goal?

Maybe start some threads with some ideas, listen to everyone who posts their comments, study up on the comments and incorporate them into you idea, post your new idea with improvements from the community, ask for input, listen to the input, fix the ideas based on the input, post the update, ask for input. Pretty soon, as you begin to think your idea is getting better, people get tired of playing with you.

Maybe you end up with something that makes sense or you don't; maybe you like it but it is not even wrong. Maybe you can't go further whether right or wrong because the physics compounds itself exponentially from a couple of simple thoughts and pictures into innumerable simultaneous equations, each with its own full length video. Not a one man job. And not a project for a public forum where there is little patience with speculation, even responsible speculation like mine . I just like doing it and I think it is important.

Why important?

It is about trying to understand what caused the initial expansion of our universe. Deciding there was some missing physics; considering it responsible speculation that the missing physics would be built around a unifying particle.

Like having the insight to consider a greater universe exists and that our observable universe is expanding within that greater universe. Like thinking that there must have been preconditions stemming from that greater universe to cause the big bang and to cause the expansion to begin; considering a pre-existing big crunch might have started our arena into the expansion mode.

Maybe the place to start would be to examine what a unifying particle would have to be like to cause a crunch to burst, to exist as energy density of space, to form matter, to cause gravity and to cause matter to be separating, to cause accelerating expansion, to generate the CMBR, to shape galactic structure and large scale structure, and to the equalize the density of expansion and start the process over again from an infinite greater universe where there is a balance between matter and energy and ... on and on.

I find this endeavor interesting and stimulating. If you don’t, don’t act like you have thought this all through and can say for sure that I am wasting my time. Everything changes if there is a unifying particle that has always existed.

You don't expect an answer?

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

I would be more than willing to abandon the EEP if it can’t burst a big crunch or form what would be an undistinguished hydrogen atom from the energy density of space or cause gravity by perpetuating an energy differential surrounding the proton.

The bottom up approach has been used to predict how the EEP does these things.

Without the EEP, the ISU dissolves into an idea that requires broader speculation. That is where responsible speculation ends, the bottom up process has nowhere to start, BBT is still without a cause, and I go on to my next interest.

There is a complexity to what I am saying that means that you won’t be able to understand it unless you have read the part of the word salad that explains the reason for the project, the basic rationale, and the specifics of the bottom up investigation. Those specifics start from the introduction of the EEP, the concept of the greater universe, the balance between energy and matter, the energy to matter to energy process, the concept of critical capacity, the arena, the energy density of space, expansion and separation, matter formation, the cause of gravity, and the generation of the homogeneous and isotropic hydrogen environment that exists after matter formation but before the first stars. That is where the bottom up process has taken me. I am at the point of trying to describe the simple hydrogen atom in terms of the EEP and how it does what the hydrogen atom does as to specific quantification of one atom at rest; size, energy, internal relationships, and workings. If I can do that with responsible bottom up speculation then the bottom up process has a recognizable link to the Mainstream.

When you discount it without acknowledging that you have read it you have no more credibility that you give me for doing the whole thing with thought. If you have read it you should be able to say where you think I have exceeded the rules of the bottom up approach, i.e. responsible speculation.

I can even list what I consider responsible speculation sequentially. Anyone can respond by telling me where they have to jump off of the Bottom Up bandwagon.

• It is responsible to speculate about a cause of the initial expansion.
• One possible cause would be a big crunch that existed before the initial expansion.
• We don’t have any physics to say why such a crunch would burst to cause the initial expansion so if the precondition was a big crunch there has to be some missing physics.
• The big crunch is said to be one of the three possible outcomes of BBT and is said to result in complete entropy so the missing physics must defeat this path to entropy.
• It is responsible to conclude that the missing physics might be carried by an as yet undiscovered particle.
• It is responsible to portray that particle as a unifying particle.

That is the first section of the bottom up process that leads to the concept of the elementary energy particle, the EEP.

For all I know all of the community will have jumped off the wagon by that point. So without listing the next section of “responsible” speculation, where do you get off the wagon? If it is #1 just say so and that should be the end of it for you.

If you stay on board for the whole section you are where I was when I began to describe what the unifying particle would have to be like to pull off its amazing feats.

If anyone is on board to this point just say so and I will list the next section which will probably shake you off the wagon.