Say what you will, there is a certain type of person that wants to speculate and that wants to look forward.

Bogie, I did say what I would.
It's said because it needed to be said.

I respect you- I like you- I enjoyed the speculations- even when they went way over my head.

But that doesn't mean I wont give you a swift kick in the butt when you need one. I hope you would do the same for me. I frequently need one

And there is Nothing Wrong- at all- with you speculating and looking ahead.
I find that topic fascinating- truly. It's a shame we may never really KNOW- and if we ever do- it will be long after I'm gone.

But pay particular attention to the points I addressed.

You call them explanations. You have placed belief- faith on them.

I was giving you the swift kick (Reality Check) that you seemed to be asking for...

Splitting hairs aren't we? You act like calling into work with the explanation that you have the flu should be believed. Maybe you just had something important to do and going to work was inconvenient; your boss will have to speculate whether or not you have the flu.

Listen up! Explanations can be speculations at the same time.

Bogie, no. I'm not splitting hairs.

Let's start at the beginning:
YOU made the thread as an ATM alternative for Caroles question.
YOU later posted in that thread addressing your concerns about the cautions other expressed about the thread.

This is SCIENCE- not calling in for work.
Quoting myself:
These warnings others gave were not an insult to your ideas or made in the desire of making your thread look unwarranted, wrong, silly or anything else.
They were made to differentiate between theory and speculation.

What you gave is not an explanation. If you called your boss and lied- then the truth remains unknown doesn't it?
Well,for the lurkers, readers and Carole, isn't it more desirable to give them a manageable AND current theory than a speculation of maybes?

ETA: Your thread may have been very satisfying for Carole or any of the other readers who followed.
No one seems to have posted on it- so that is an unknown.

But it IS important to remember that it IS speculation- not theory.

Yes, it is speculation if I didn't mention that.

You did

<Heads for the barber>

Speculations continued from above:

[33]Space is filled with energy so fine that even the tiniest amount of it can be divided
[34]These tiny amounts of energy, smaller than a quantum by far, are called sub-quanta
[35]Matter is composed of energy in quantum increments
[36]A quantum of energy, the increment that is required to form matter, is composed of energy sub-quanta
[37]Sub-quanta contain different and varying amounts of energy but all have less than a quantum of energy
[38]Sub-quanta make up an energy background to matter
[39]Sub-quanta do not exist as separate amounts of energy; instead they are connected, they fill all space, and they demonstrate energy density fluctuations continually so that at a point in space, the energy density is always changing
[40]There are two requirements for an energy quantum to form: 1)volume of space 2) energy density
[41]When the required amount of energy occupies the required amount of space a quantum forms
[42]Once a quantum of energy occurs in space it always collapses to a maximum energy density and bursts back into sub-quanta
[43]New quanta form from the sub-quanta from the bursts of many surrounding quantum bursts

Continued

Some of these speculations sound like they may be testable at some point. What do you think about that?

[44]Speculation numbers 31/32 and 42/43 are related. The burst of a big crunch [31/32] and the burst of a quantum [42/43] are the same event at two different levels of order.

Hi Neverfly; Give me an idea of which ones might be testable and at what point are you thinking that could happen? What kind of tests?

Well, that's what I was asking you...


Looking for this effect?

And this effect?

Ah yes, finding the energy background that goes by different names including the Higgs field, the aether, or spacetime. I hold out no hope of proving that there is an energy background to matter, let alone the concept of any amount of energy less that a quantum, i.e. my sub-quanta.

The background of sub-quanta energy would be there even if there was no matter at all. Matter forms from the background energy because when energy density equalizes across all space, there are tiny (quantum sized) spaces that must contain a full quantum of energy simply because the ratio of energy to space is higher than the energy density that causes matter to form, and matter forms in quantum increments.

Those are speculations that are not falsifiable.The physical action of a quantum of energy (a certain amount of sub-quanta energy in a certain tiny space) is to collapse until near infinite energy density occurs and then to burst back into a cloud of sub-quanta energy. But a quantum of energy performing this feat is too small to observe. At a minimum there are 700 billion of them in a proton and ~400 million in an electron; very small indeed.

The collapse is nothing more than the equalization of the energy density within that quantum sized space. As it equalizes it requires less space because the sub-quanta are a group of tinier energy density fluctuations and once the quantum amount of sub-quanta occupy the tiny space required (quantum space), all of the multiple density fluctuations are resolved into one fluctuation which uses less space. The use of less space is the collapse of the quantum.

The resolution of the vast number of tinier fluctuations and the shrinking of the required space to contain the equalizing quantum continues as the quantum collapses until ... until the maximum possible energy density is achieved. The collapsed quantum then bursts back into a cloud of sub-quanta because there is nothing to sustain the pressure.

The evidence is circumstantial. When we see what a proton does, and what an electron does, then we can derive how they work. I described the surface action of a proton and the interface with an election, plus the interface of the electron with the sub-quanta background in my thread about Speculations that Something Preceded Expansion which I linked to earlier.

But those are speculations that are not falsifiable because of the scale of the quanta and sub-quanta.

Clearly from the responses that speculation about such circumstantial evidence receives here at BAUT, there are few members willing to go there.

Where do these figures come from?

The ratio of the surface to the volume of a sphere and the ratio of electron energy to proton energy.

The ratio of the surface to the volume of a sphere and the ratio of electron energy to proton energy. These calcultions are in my thread about ... I have to look it up. Wait.

Try this post and the link listed in it.

The infinite reach of gravity in the ISU
Like a Mirror in a Mirror...

If you ever followed my idea of how matter forms from quanta you know that the surface of the proton is surrounded by low energy density relative to the density of the proton itself. The low energy density attracts quanta but the proton is already complete and cannot accept any more quanta, so the quanta that are swarming the low energy density around the proton end up forming an electron. I reason that there is one quanta of energy in the electron for each quanta of energy on the surface of the proton on the basis that the proton would be being swarmed from all directions.

The number of quanta in a proton was developed on the idea that a quanta required a specific space and a bunch of pulsing quanta like in a proton would have an average space per quanta even though there would be quanta occupying different amounts of space and any given time.

EEPs (Elementary Energy Particles) in the following excerpt are energy quanta.

I will answer questions about this:

The infinite reach of gravity in the ISU
Relationship #1 is the surface vs. the volume of the proton. Simple math comparing the formula for the surface of a sphere and the formula for the volume of a sphere with these formulas: Surface Area = 4 pi r2; Volume = 4/3 pi r3.

To determine the specific numbers we need the radius.

For relationship #2, we know the relationship between the mass of the electron and the mass of the proton, both consisting entirely of EEPs, albeit at drastically different densities of EEPs; 1:1,836.

So we solve for the radius that gives us the same relationship between the surface and the volume of the proton as we get between the mass of the electron and the mass of the proton. That way, since my idea is that the number of EEPs in the electron at rest is equal to the number of EEPs on the surface of the proton, and a proton is a sphere in the ISU (Infinite Spongy Universe), then I have the number of EEPs in an electron at rest when I have the number of EEPs on the surface of a proton.

I did this using the trial and error method, this website, and an Excel spreadsheet and about five minutes. It turns out that a radius of 5,508 units gives us the right relationship, i.e. 1:1,836.

The result of 5,508 occurs at a surface of 381,239,356 units, and a volume of 699,955,457,517 units (EEPs in a proton), right at 1:1,836. The electron at rest equals the number of surface EEPs and so the electron contains 381,239,356 EEPs.

Hi Carole; I know you are staying out of the ATM forum, perhaps because you are not comfortable commenting on advanced physics speculation. But maybe you are lurking. This thread was dedicated to you and will be open for a total of thirty days, the amount of time allotted to any single ATM discussion.

Your questions coincidently were right down my alley. My previous ATM threads have addressed them to a degree, but by creating this thread for you I have been able to advance my thinking. That equates to further new speculations.

This thread actually contains new speculations about the energy background and the action of the energy quantum. I have been speculating about an energy background, energy quanta, and about matter being formed in quantum energy increments for awhile, but until this thread I have not been able to put into word "salad" the exact description of the background and tie it seamlessly to the collapsing action of a quantum of energy. It is the concept of energy density equalization within the quantum space that causes the collapse and burst of the quantum; lovely.

It was speculation # [39]”Sub-quanta do not exist as separate amounts of energy; instead they are connected, they fill all space, and they demonstrate energy density fluctuations continually so that at a point in space, the energy density is always changing”, that broke new ground for me in my series of speculations.

After including that in the list, Neverfly mentioned it as one of the speculations that might be testable and I responded (with some editing):
… The collapse is nothing more than the equalization of the energy density within that quantum sized space. As it equalizes it requires less space because the sub-quanta are a group of tinier energy density fluctuations and once the quantum amount of sub-quanta occupy the tiny space required (quantum space), all of the multiple density fluctuations captured in the quantum space are resolved into one fluctuation which uses less space and has higher energy density. The use of less space equates to the collapse of the quantum, and the higher energy density acheived when all of the captured sub-quanta become one fluctuation equates to the maximum possible energy density which causes the quantum to burst back into a cloud of sub-quanta.

This is a speculative break through for me. Your questions and Neverfly’s attempt to support my efforts have nudged me closer to my goal of a personal set of speculations that in my mind explain the universe to my satisfaction. Thank you both.