That's what people think after the fact, but it ignores that people are actively working for it to bring that change about against a tendency to keep a status quo. — MindForged

Thus, it is sorting itself out.

I see it more biologically. Men are generally the larger, more aggressive animal of the human species. We were generally the hunters, the protectors etc. Females were typically the carers and child raisers. As such in conflicts between the male and females, the male does tend to gnash his teeth and bang his chest more, but the female also has her wiles and it can be death by a thousand cuts.

As society progressed out of the jungles and both men and women enjoyed more time (to get away from the kids), there was I think some resistance by men to the idea of women stepping into what was their traditional space - I don't know if I would call it oppression though (not to say there weren't idiots or clusters of idiots, or mindset adjustments that needed to happen). I think it's sorting itself out though.

As for the discussion on whether we men should be eradicated through time, I don't think it should be banned. It would be interesting to discuss the ramifications of it. What would society be like?

Furthermore, the majority of women actually do like men so the proposal is far fetched.

As far as your field hypothesis goes, there is something called a morphogenetic field posited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphogenetic_field but I think you were thinking something more fundamental than some form of 'emergent' causation. — JupiterJess

Hi JupiterJess, great to be back. In a sense I am talking about a Morphogenetic field, but not biological in nature. It may have to do more with chemistry. The enzyme that can digest plastic arose and proliferated because there was plastic to be had, and it did it in a very short time window, which has astonished scientists. This has unsettled my thinking.

Perhaps the questions that are most perplexing for me when studying the emergence and formation of life is 'but how did it know to...', 'how did it know there was....' Perhaps this is perplexing for me because there is a fundamental in-baked blindness that occurs when we consider atoms as singular entities independent of a field. It is through this path that we investigate the formation and emergence of life. Somewhere we have gone from physics as particles interacting with their fields, to just particles acting blindly.

I think we need to bring the field back to biology. Humans are fairly intelligent creatures. So many of them brought back to life report an afterlife, so many believe in the idea of an all pervading energy. I have stood on mountain tops and overlooked spectacular views and just wanted to burst and dissolve into them. I think we have all looked at the stars and felt connection. (and if you really want to go out onto a limb - psychics and whatnot- personal opinion withheld)

The point is, I think it is a field that we are sensing. Our bodies are able to warp the field and create life, and consciousness. As they age the ability to warp it diminish, until we become less particle, more field.

I hope I didn't waffle too much. I'm still trying to hone my own thoughts on the matter.

In quantum field theory each subatomic particle we have identified exists as an excitement on its own, specific field — SnowyChainsaw

Hi SnowyChainsaw, we had the 'god particle' so why not the 'life particle', right? As appealing as the thought is, we also know that there are larger fundamental fields such as the electromagnetic, gravitational, weak and strong interactions - so somewhere along the line, these more fundamental fields you speak of must surely create these larger fields. Based on this prediction I would go one step further to predict that such field creation may fall into the more bizarre category that occurs when fundamental fields combine. How far off base am I?

At fundamental level, fields themselves are regulated by universal laws and the properties have well defined characteristics, particularly with how matter interacts with one another. — TimeLine

The way I look at it, the universe is one big field, teased apart into individual threads we have named as electromagnetic field, gravitational field etc, due to the predictable properties of examining them as such. We call the predictable properties universal laws. But I think that teasing the field into these threads while great for advancing learning, is also stifling to a certain degree or understanding what is actually happening.

I think that we can combine fields (eg electrical and magnetic into electromagnetic) and that the effect is not always summative. It could be a plus one effect. It could be something absolutely bizzare. I'm suggesting that life could be like this.

If we are content to just sit here with what we have, even if it is sufficient, and they continue to grow, they will overrun us. — Banno

I agree with both points. In first world countries there is dissatisfaction with ones relative wealth, which can prompt you to try to keep up with the Jones'. It is when we look up from behind the steering wheel of out 1996 Ford at the 22 year old driving the Ferrari that we yearn for more.

We may often consider ourselves poor, but when we go to some third world countries and see what poverty really looks like we get a different picture. Often though, in those places, they seem relatively content with their lot, because just about everybody is in the same boat.

Wealth and lack of wealth is very much associated with social status and all the perks that go with it. The prehistoric man who had the food tucked away could distribute it to his tribe in times of need and thus raise his social status.

We also live in what I call 'the age of plenty, and plenty cheap' which is catching a lot of baby boomers, who are used to scarcity, out. They snatch up something on the shelf before it disappears, and before long they are hoarders.

There is the story of Moby Dick, which was based on a real event. According to the real event, the crew ejected into their lifeboats and resorted to cannabilsation after their food ran out. After his rescue and for the rest of his life the captain hoarded food at his house.

The growth in companies has similar motivations. Social status - prestige, protection against competitors by cornering the market. etc.

I take your point. I guess the critical difference is that she can pull the plug at any time by saying no. Generally speaking if someone wears provocative clothing, they will attract attention and advances toward themselves, but in other countries they can refuse the interest. I think by being able to end the experiment herself it is more on part with that.

I agree that there is a point of morality here. But it is not in the doing, it is in the defending. The audience begins making decisions for Marina to protect her from the ambitious nature of the game players. That's the morality- they walk the fine line of letting her express herself through this game, and taking protective steps as to how far they will let the game go.

As an interesting aside to do with the the trough and crest of Dark Energy: If you don't like the idea of filling an energy value in the wave form, you could argue the asymmetry is temporal. You could suggest it arises due to gravity slowing time in the trough. The lack of gravity in the crest would similarly speed up time. When we calibrate against a standard time, we get the asymmetric wave.

To eliminate the need for the external energy comparison against which the gravity wave is trying to re-create itself - the container - it is possible to argue the geometric forces of the wave as well - its need for symmetry - as a restorative driver. In this scenario the energy of mass is being pulled out entropically as the stronger geometric forces seek to restore the wave to its symmetric (equilibrium) shape.

Such asymmetry, it could be argued arose at the time of the Big Bang fundamentally due to the self-restraining action of gravity. But that's another post.

The Universe as a Gas Can - Part III: Dark Energy

The previous post spoke about the inwardly curving gravitational space.
It is not unreasonable to assume that if space can curve inwardly into high density regions, it also curves outwardly into low density regions (an inward curve and an outward curve). In fact, in true wave fashion, they both must exist. Imagine flopping onto a half-inflated mattress, the depression you create is offset by the rise in the mattress around you.



Intergalactic space takes up most of the volume of the Universe, but even galaxies and star systems consist almost entirely of empty space.”” [ quote ]
Data indicates that the majority of the mass-energy in the observable universe is a poorly understood vacuum energy of space which astronomers label dark energy. [ quote 2 ]

“ Independently of its actual nature, dark energy would need to have a strong negative pressure (acting repulsively) like radiation pressure in a metamaterial to explain the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe. According to general relativity, the pressure within a substance contributes to its gravitational attraction for other things just as its mass density does. This happens because the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is the stress–energy tensor, which contains both the energy (or matter) density of a substance and its pressure and viscosity. In the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric, it can be shown that a strong constant negative pressure in all the universe causes an acceleration in universe expansion if the universe is already expanding, or a deceleration in universe contraction if the universe is already contracting. This accelerating expansion effect is sometimes labeled "gravitational repulsion". [ quote3
]
This negative pressure is somewhat contentious. In its strictest definition it has been implied to be in the very fabric of space itself, leading to all sorts of confusion in my opinion. Nonetheless, this contention is fine, so long as we realise that the fabric of space is the Gravitational wave.

When we examine the gravity wave, we see that in addition to its gravity trough, it also has a crest. The crest rises above the height of the midline – the position it would be at if there was no wave.

While gravity in the form of matter and Dark Matter inhabits the troughs, I suggest that Dark Energy represents the crests. The midline would represent the place where gravity transitions to Dark Energy, and begins pushing back against the trough- an opposite direction.

This opposite pushing effect may be described as a negative pressure. Because it is a crest and not a trough it may also be considered anti-gravitational in nature. The crest, being antigravitational also aids in the clumping of matter, preventing it from spreading evenly throughout the universe.

When we examine the geometry of a crest we see there is an outward expansive force in two directions: forward and backwards. However, in a disrupted wave that has broken into an interference pattern, such as we noted in the previous post on Dark Matter, the expansive forces become multidirectional – or pan-directional. Outward expansion is its natural direction. It would have a resisting effect should space be compressed.

“it can be shown that a strong constant negative pressure in all the universe causes an acceleration in universe expansion if the universe is already expanding, or a deceleration in universe contraction if the universe is already contracting. [ quote4 ]

When we examine both the gravity crest and trough together we see they both exert an outward expansive force. However, gravity is pushing from a trough and Dark Matter is pushing from a crest.

The way spacetime geometry is configured, gravity- the trough- because of its ability to concentrate matter and forces becomes high density space (see the stress-energy-tensor later on), and therefore Dark Energy -the crest – is low density. To include the same overall -mass/energy equivalent, expected of a wave, Dark Energy, being low density space, would need to take up a lot more room. This is seen in the images of the superclusters and intergalactic space posted earlier – the cosmic web.

Thus we must pay close attention here to a divergence in understanding. The gravitational crest is widening spatially so maintain the energy value of the gravitational crest. Thus, it is possible for the crest to contribute a substantially greater geometric push to spacetime while maintaining an energy integrity consistent with the waveform. From this we can see the true gravitational wave that is spacetime must be energetic and not spatial, although both exist.

This is on par with conclusions we reached when we said the universe is expanding to draw out the energy value in matter. Space and Energy are in different reference frames (or dimensions).

The expansion of the universe is a spatial expansion. It is this push that is occurring as the crest red-shifts (widens) against a trough also red-shifting (widening). That is the universal push and why it seems ubiquitous. As both crest and trough flatten, the horizontal vector component of the push increases, and we observe a universe expanding at an ever increasing rate.

It must be remembered that the gravity trough and crest are diametrically opposed in terms of the forces they exert on spatial geometry- accounting for the mysterious attributes ascribed to Dark Energy. Both will want to flatten their part of the wave up to the midline. At the midline though the forces reverse.

Entropy
I feel it would be remiss to explain the redshift of the gravitational wave in terms of space without some reference to entropy – the point we started.

"While the amount of mass loss is negligible, it isn't zero, and it has an effect on Earth's orbit. As the Sun loses mass its gravitational pull on the Earth weakens over time. As a result, Earth is receding slightly from the Sun." quote5

Even black holes experience entropy through black body radiation. Entropy causes a decrease in gravity through the loss of energy.

According to a GR reference frame, Entropy, by decreasing gravity, would affect the geometric curvature of spacetime- Specifically it would make spacetime less curved.

We can also arrive at this conclusion circuitously by looking at Gravitational Fields and the Stress-energy Tensor.
"The stress–energy tensor [sic] is a tensor quantity in physics that describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime [sic]. It is an attribute of matter, radiation, and non-gravitational force fields. The stress–energy tensor is the source of the gravitational field in the Einstein field equations of general relativity, just as mass density is the source of such a field in Newtonian gravity." quote6

Choosing to work backwards, if gravity is declining due to entropy, then that will be reflected in a weakening gravitational field. If the source of the gravitational field is the stress-energy tensor, then entropy must be affecting the stress-energy tensor. If the stress-energy tensor describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime, then entropy must be affecting the density and flux of energy and/or momentum in spacetime.

Gravity is a high-density region of space. The density of spacetime must therefore be decreased by entropy. Decreasing pockets of high density space where gravity exists must make space more uniform (less bunched)– therefore entropy can be considered to have a space flattening effect.

We also see matter draining into “The Great Attractor”. At the distal fringes as matter moves translationally in the direction of this energy sink we can expect to see an unfolding of the space curvature. As space unfolds, either due to entropy or movement to “The Great Attractor” (or the equivalent of), it will create an expansive push against the dimension of spacetime, contributing to the expansion of the universe. This is because a rising trough/corridor will displace its previous vertically orientated trough walls into the horizontal plane. This movement will be opposed by the crest, which wishes to push its walls into the centre of the trough.

It can be speculated that as mass gathers in The Great Attractor, a black hole will eventually form, from which Entropy, through blackbody radiation will eventually dissolve it (as previously stated).

I am no physicist.

The Universe as a Gas Can – Part II: Dark Matter

In QM, gravity is considered a force, the graviton being the force carrier. In GR, gravity is represented as a geometric curvature of spacetime created by mass.

When we have (spacetime) expansion and we have (spacetime) curvature, it is hard not to imagine waves. With the exception of matter, everything else in the universe seems comprised of waves. Gravity waves were predicted by Einstein and recently observed emanating from neutron stars.

“Gravitational waves are ripples in the curvature of spacetime that are generated in certain gravitational interactions and propagate as waves outward from their source at the speed of light.
In Einstein's theory of general relativity, gravity is treated as a phenomenon resulting from the curvature of spacetime. This curvature is caused by the presence of mass. Generally, the more mass that is contained within a given volume of space, the greater the curvature of spacetime will be at the boundary of its volume. As objects with mass move around in spacetime, the curvature changes to reflect the changed locations of those objects. In certain circumstances, accelerating objects generate changes in this curvature, which propagate outwards at the speed of light in a wave-like manner. These propagating phenomena are known as gravitational waves.” [ quote ]

Higgs, Temperature & Curvature

The Higgs Mechanism speculates that mass arose with the cooling of the universe. When energy fell below a certain very high critical temperature it caused a symmetry breaking.

“The simplest description of the mechanism adds a quantum field (the Higgs field) that permeates all space, to the Standard Model. Below some extremely high temperature, the field causes spontaneous symmetry breaking [between the electroweak interactions (electromagnetism and weak interaction- which at high temperature appear symmetrical in all respects)].
The breaking of symmetry triggers the Higgs mechanism, causing the bosons it interacts with to have mass.” [ quote1 ] (In Supersymmetry, which attempts to unite QM with GR the bosons are force carriers with no mass, fermions are the constituents of matter because they have mass)

The first important thing to note here is that the Higgs Mechanism talks in terms of fields – the Higgs field which is added to the Standard Model (of fundamental forces) to explain the formation of mass. It also talks of temperature invoking the creation of mass (claiming a symmetry break of electroweak forces). I want to look at temperature as it relates to curvature of space.

If the Universe continues to expand, science predicts a heat death (where there is no difference in temperature across space). The heat death has been described as occurring due to entropy. “When all the energy the in the cosmos is uniformly spread out, there is no more heat or free energy to fuel processes that consume energy, such as life.” [ quote2 ]


The equal distribution of energy in the universe would correspond to one with no curvature (no region denser than another).

“If the topology of the universe is open or flat, or if dark energy is a positive cosmological constant (both of which are supported by current data), the universe will continue expanding forever and a heat death is expected to occur, with the universe cooling to approach equilibrium at a very low temperature after a very long time period.” [ quote3 ]

Thus, curvature and temperature can be related in this sense. A flattening of space equates with a reduction in temperature because of the even distribution of energy across it. The Higgs Mechanism suggests that a decrease in temperature (the spacing of energy) caused matter to materialise via this mechanism. We might thus re-write this assumption as: a change in the curvature of spacetime caused matter to materialise via this mechanism.

An inward curvature of space represents gravity. Thus, we could say that gravity caused matter to materialise… via this mechanism. Note, this is suggesting gravity is the cause of matter, not that matter is the cause of gravity. It is a distinction I wish to stress (and my assertion).

Gravity Waves and The Big Bang

“In Einstein's theory of general relativity, gravity is treated as a phenomenon resulting from the curvature of spacetime. This curvature is caused by the presence of mass.” [ quote4 ]

I believe there is a problem with looking at gravity in terms of mass. The problem is it becomes very pointilised. A sun has a gravity of X-value, and sits in its well, bending space around it enough to trap the orbits of the planets which all sit in their own gravity wells trapping their moons etc. Each one of the positions is a point in space from which gravity emanates.

I find the idea of such pointilised gravity counter-intuitive at large scales – we don’t see points. We see corridors or troughs of gravity. Higgs suggested a change in a field to create matter. Changes in field states are expressed as waves.

I suggest that gravity propagated as a wave at the time of the Big Bang, much like it did in the recorded observations of the neutron stars. As it’s wavelength redshifted, the temperature dropped causing mass/matter to precipitate through some (the Higgs) mechanism. It was no ordinary wave though. I suggest it was a ‘Prime Wave’, meaning that it came momentarily before the others.

Gravity is unique among the forces, for while it does not respond to the influence from the other forces, it does exert an effect upon them, much like a master-slave relation. “Gravitational waves can penetrate regions of space that electromagnetic waves cannot.” [ quote5 ]

“The fundamental reason that gravitons have proved harder to model than other bosons such as photons, is that other types of bosons do not interact with other bosons of their own type. For example, photons do not interact with photons. Photons carry the electromagnetic force, but are not charged themselves and do not interact via this force. Photons have (relativistic) mass and interact with gravity, but not with their own forces. Like photons, gravitons also carry (relativistic) mass, but unlike photons and gluons, they carry the gravitational force which interacts with this mass. As well as gravitons having to thus interact with other gravitons, quantum mechanics means they must also interact with themselves via virtual particles.” [ quote6 ]

It's prime position among other particles and forces, and the way it curves spacetime, suggests that the emanating gravitational wave from the time of the Big Bang might be the underlying fabric of spacetime itself.

“In some descriptions energy modifies the "shape" of spacetime itself, and gravity is a result of this shape, an idea which at first glance may appear hard to match with the idea of a force acting between particles.” [ quote7 ]

The universe we see is not dominated by outwardly expanding rings of gravity, but rather cut up into interference patterns (clusters of matter in long thin threads). For this reason, the idea of gravity troughs or gravity corridors carries a greater visual power than gravity waves – although the one necessarily implies the other. (I will attempt to explain this clumpiness shortly).

Dark Matter

“Dark matter is a hypothetical type of matter distinct from baryonic matter (ordinary matter such as protons and neutrons), neutrinos and dark energy.
Dark matter has never been directly observed; however, its existence would explain a number of otherwise puzzling astronomical observations. The name refers to the fact that it does not emit or interact with observable electromagnetic radiation, such as light, and is thus invisible to the entire electromagnetic spectrum.” [ quote8 ]

At this point I would like to redirect your attention to the earlier quote: “Gravitational waves can penetrate regions of space that electromagnetic waves cannot.” [ quote9 ]

“Although dark matter has not been directly observed, its existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects such as the motions of baryonic matter, gravitational lensing, its influence on the universe's large-scale structure, on the formation of galaxies, and its effects on the cosmic microwave background.
The standard model of cosmology indicates that the total mass–energy of the universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy. Thus, dark matter constitutes 84.5% of total mass, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of total mass–energy content.” [ quote10 ]

I define gravity corridors as long sunken regions of space where the collective gravities are exerting a collective pull on the fabric of space. I further suggest that this collective pull on the fabric of space is causing a sinking of space beyond the numerical sum of each individual gravity (an extended caving in around gravity clusters)- such an effect could be a candidate for Dark Matter. It is an important note here while I am insisting there can be no matter without gravity, I am also asserting the existence of gravity without matter. We could liken the formation of matter from gravity as similar in nature to a thermocline, where matter precipitates out beyond a certain gravity value/curvature. That value was attained at the time of the Big Bang.

The idea that gravity should be thought of in terms of permanent corridors (more than just being a ripple effect of a disturbance or a matter-point phenomenon) is further strengthened by the examination of superclusters.

“The entire universe can be seen as an intricate network of galaxies called the Cosmic Web. Some areas are almost empty, dark voids. Others are densely packed regions of galaxies known as superclusters. Superclusters are the biggest structures found in the universe. But scientists have struggled to map where one ends and the other begins.” “Cosmic flows are the paths galaxies migrate along.” “Most galaxies are being pulled toward a dense centre, known as The Great Attractor” (paraphrased) [ Link ] I highly recommend you watch the 4 min video in this link.

Once created, matter became ‘locked’ in its energy configuration, to mostly dwell in the bottom of the gravity corridors in which it was formed. The settling of matter in these descending corridors has created the appearance of “Clustering or Clumpiness” of matter in the universe.

As was established at the start of the first OP, matter has sequestered energy that is no longer freely available for the universe to use in its energy fields. It is perhaps useful to think of matter, with its gravity that will only yield to entropy, as a stabilising force, giving a certain rigidity and integrity/permanence or inertia to gravitational wave corridors.

In addition to acting as a stabilising force, this locking of energy gives a property to matter discreet from gravity. It is the ability to move translationally through spacetime given enough momentum to do so- taking its gravity with it. Collisions amongst particles, gravity slingshots, or descending gravity corridors, might have provided such momentum.

This interaction of matter with itself has created the interference patterns in the otherwise symmetrical ripples of space time. It is these interference patterns and gravity corridors we can see when we look at the Cosmic Web and superclusters.

Thus gravity is a wave phenomenon which gave (gives?) rise to matter. Matter thereafter has it's own intrinsic gravity. Gravity though persists without the need for matter, although matter will settle into it's deepest parts. It is this recognition of gravity not dependent on matter which could account for Dark Matter - an unseen gravitational force of massive magnitude.

There is no meaning to having an energy value fall unless it is relative to something.

There is an assumption that gravity arises as a result of matter. But gravity is the very curvature of space itself. For now, as a heuristic (or just to humor me), imagine it the other way around. I have to leave for work now, and I don't want to rush, but I will suggest am application of this type of thinking may allow for an explanation of dark matter.

I've looked at the density parameters and cosmological constant. I see your saddle shape and the conclusion of the heat death. I don't see how we should feel constrained to that view though. The model I'm suggesting differs in two regards:
1. It does not assume a uniform density - but rather two types (Dark Energy itself postulates this) - does that make it a Quintessence? Not sure.
2. It does not assume the density is eternal, but rather moving toward a net equilibrium through the mechanism of entropy, which would suggest an ultimate (perhaps unrealistic or ultimately ideal) flat geometric space.

*I would note that I am not entirely sure how geometry is defined in cosmology, and I realise the term energy is in danger of conflation between being a geometric property and a value (like how much fuel is in the gas tank) and even with entropy.

I read that the Standard Model when used to predict vacuum energy comes up with a value 120 order of magnitude too large, so I see that the door is open to ideas here. (I am working on a dark energy one that might fit in, but one step at a time).

How are you travelling with the idea?

Well that's is the nature of this macabre game which has made it exciting for everyone involved, including the artist I would imagine.

If everyone knew the gun wouldn't work, it would be the first thing they would have grabbed, just to win the game. Instead, the audience is studying her. They are making value judgments about her. Is it a real gun or is it not? Is she that full on, or not? And every time the scenario escalates and she doesn't respond - far from demeaning her, she is winning points in the eyes of the viewers - a wow factor.

This is why there was a viewing audience who rushed in when the gun was chosen, because it was their value judgement that she was just serious enough to have put a live bullet into a functional gun. Do we know that the gun did work?

If you say that the charge would be manslaughter it suggests you understand the game being played.

I would be pre-supposing that only a fool would offer a loaded gun that works so we could shoot them. Marina has set the conditions by offering the tools on the table. She communicates the nature of the game by telling you to try and do anything to her, and then not responding when you do. The game is: make her respond - and as it gets underway and one thing doesn't work followed by another the game naturally escalates. Thus the gun would be the penultimate resolution of the game. Either the gun doesn't work and it is resolved or she breaks out a response before she gets shot. I can't imagine anybody in that room imagining that she would actually get shot.

It's different to morality. A lack of morality might see someone approach someone defenseless on the street, grab their hand and force them put a bullet in themselves in point blank. There is no comparison.

I think a more interesting question might be what would have happened to the person if they had shot her? Would it be manslaughter or murder?

But gravity wants to curve spacetime into a tight ball - a singularity. And dark energy is the opposite in wanting to curve spacetime hyperbolically - a constant bending away from itself. — apokrisis

At first glance it appears as if they have swapped places. If you took your analogy of the sphere and the saddle, that is just the same as the energy ball/egg of dark energy and the matter shape of the egg carton respectively. Because they are coming out in exactly the opposite places like this it suggests it is a problem of imagining or assigning the wrong an inverse property the attribute (so instead of using gravity you use antigravity for example). The basic shapes are correct though.

That gravity wants to curve space time into a tight ball is just saying it wants to increase the density of space around it. All force lines feed in (that is why it can also be visualised as a well). Dark Energy is exactly the opposite and wants to curve spacetime the other way - low density with the field lines moving out of it (a bubble). There is no conflict here I can see between what you say and what I say that cannot be solved by realising that we can describe an object in terms of its background or intrinsic volume (opposite but the same).

Entropy of course doesn't want space to curve into a tighter ball. It wants to free the energy locked in high density space and give energy that to low density space so that all space becomes nice and even. We know entropy bleeds energy out of matter. We know the curvature of space in terms of gravity is produced by mass. If mass is bleeding energy its gravitational field lowers. The gravity well rises toward the surface (the ball becomes less tight) because of the net effect of entropy.

Entropy would also be acting on dark energy, not to release energy but gain energy in terms of space density, which would be something we could look at and think about.

I am glad you said they balance each other, because I have been wanting them to form that relationship. They don't match each other spatially but in terms of net energy- note I say net energy. This is important to create a neat energy sine wave. ). Gravity is very tight, high density energy but of short duration (a deep narrow trough), while dark energy would be expanded low density energy over a much longer duration (a shallow wide bowl). But gravity and dark energy can share the same total energy value.

As the entropy does it's work the sine way flattens. When it has flatlined, it is game over and the flip of the wave from frequency 1 wavelength 0 to frequency 0 wavelength 1 is complete (but I don't think it ever will because I don't think this is a property a radiating sine wave can adopt - the eternal redshift we talked of earlier).

Is there something about it that still bothers you? It seems like a nice little energy symmetry.

If it is true, do you see the beauty of it? Mass is governed by entropy which wishes to bring gravity (ultimately) up to flat space by dissolving the energy out of matter. Dark energy also wants to flatten itself out in order to become flat space but in the reverse. Gravity flattens out of its well, dark energy flattens its mole hill. A process of ironing the kinks out.

I just realised I may have not explained it adequately. It is inherent because the bubbles are 'in' space - it is the curvature of space. An outward rather than inward curvature. The negative pressure is because it is collapsing while the universe is expanding.

It is inherent in space. The negative pressure is due to the shape, which is an antrgravitational shape. So imagine them as energy balls in space that you can only go over. It keeps pushing things around them like a forcefield. And I think it could create an accelerating expansion because the tangent on the collapsing bubble would move from vertical to the horizontal plane as it collapses, causing greater horizontal speed. Expansion would be uniform because all the sides are touching. Mass remains unaffected because it is in the ditches and doesn't expand (remember we talked about if you could create matter by bending space). The universe photo is the egg carton. I'll check out the link tomorrow. This is good fun.

This image of the galaxies is the missing ratio?

Actually, now that I re-read it, it seems to fall in line with what I said at the beginning - that mass would form in the gaps, don't you think? I don't see why both theories can't be right. The large low density space areas are dark energy. And looking at the pictures they're showing of the network of galaxies, it seems to match right up.

Yeah, the conclusion left me scratching my head.

You might also find this interesting. It talks about creating cavitation as a function of wavelength and (of course) frequency. It also talks about conservation of energy as it relates to cavitation size, although it does not address the density of the medium - or any changes therein. It also talks of power, which we would substitute for energy.

We know that when space began everything was tripping over itself to get out (high density) and as it broke free it became less dense.

And just now, typing expansion of bubbles (to see if I could simulate the push) gave me this.

I typed in space bubble theory and got this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation
Although I don't see why a bubble would have to contain gas. It would not be hollow, just relative low density areas of space all collapsing to provide a uniform outward push (at least in a 2d reference frame).

Like this:

I spent the better part of two days working with rotation and translation ideas to little avail. In the end I think it is the question you are trying to solve with it that I don't quite understand. Why it is conserved in space?- is that it? My conclusion was - that it is only conserved in idealic circumstances. I don't see how it is conserved otherwise. For example we know that a material body will accelerate (or decelerate) as well as alter course in a gravitational field, thereafter adopting higher or lower translational velocities (slingshotting) and we know space is curved, and if it passes the even horizon of black hole nothing gets out. In linear non-gravitational space I think the conservation rule holds. Do you disagree?

For now though, I was thinking about this on my jog:

And if there is the third option of expansion - as there really must be just because it is both what we can see, and what is most probable given the Universe has been around long enough for us to be even wondering - then this expansion must be most remarkably fine-tuned. The expansion - or indeed now, the acceleration - is adjusted to be exactly the amount needed to make the Universe almost perfectly flat and future eternal.

The details are worth going into as this is a cosmic scale whodunnit. It shows how poor our metaphysical intuitions can be. It shows why proper science is actually needed. :)

The actual physics has long moved on. The question now is why is it faintly accelerating by some precisely correct amount to make up for the 70 per cent of "missing mass". There is plenty of speculation about possible answers, but right now it is simply a really big and interesting gap in our scientific knowledge.

And have come up with this:

The idea that the universe is expanding beyond that accounted for by entropy obviously suggests another unaccounted for energy - the dark energy you talked about. I had an idea, and I've been researching as I write this and so far my hunches are panning out as I go along (ironically I find it quite frustrating). Maybe I am just treading a well worn path here.

At the beginning of the universe it was not just temperature that dropped, but also pressure (just came across negative pressure). When we have a rapid drop in pressure things bubble (I can't think of a more scientific term). What if spacetime bubbled (we know its curved). A bubble would be an area of less dense space, which would want to collapse back out, thus providing a push. Punctuating the area around the bubbles would be higher density areas where matter formed (gravity) - like the parts giving shape to the inside of an egg carton. So while matter wants to go from a dense to a less dense energy form, dark energy wants to go from less dense to more dense.

If we consider more dense space as having curvature - gravity, then less dense space would have an inverse curvature - an anti-gravity effect. Thus matter can arise in gravity - curvature (as I've suggested before) - OK, I've just found out that dark matter has a force that repels gravity.
These large bubbles would explain why there is more dark energy than matter energy, why the energy value of the universe continues beyond the container of entropy, and why dark energy has such a low density. As it collapses we would expect velocity of collapse to increase, consistent with the expanding velocity of the universe. It also explains why the expanding universe does not enlarge matter.

I found a reference to quantum foam relating it to space density which also kind of fits in. I have just found this good reference here which actually fits the bill too. Actually, like I thought, it might be a well worn path I'm describing, more speculation, but I'll pass it on to you anyway.

Aside:
As you know, I like to work on visualizing these types of problems but most of the time they've been solved- I think I'm on the right track here, but I don't think it's ground breaking. You're more up to date than me with the state of science, can you suggest an unsolved physics puzzle?

having experts in the field tell you that you sound like a damaged trumpet may hurt your feelings, but it is probably a reality check that you need. — TimeLine

Read the OP

Case in point.

I chose about right.

It is not the moderation that is the problem. It is the moderators code of conduct. In a great site like this one where you attract a lot of people with a lot of ideas and different ways of expressing those ideas, I would expect moderators to conduct themselves with a degree of decorum. I would expect that the way they interact with members is respectful. In the recent case of the deletion of my post it was neither of these things.

To begin with, when you delete someones work, you are erasing their effort and thought. If their submission attempt was genuine you can expect pushback- there is a seed of an idea or question in there and perhaps they didn't get it out. When you conduct such a deletion without even informing the poster that you have done it or the reasons why you have done it that is arrogant,volunteer or not.

It takes a minute or two to send a message saying something along the lines of, I couldn't quite follow the thread, people may find it confusing, please tidy up the idea and repost. Happy hunting! That would be constructive and give direction. To say the volunteers don't have time is a mistruth. They had time to read the OP and to delete it and to comment on other OPs as participants.

Instead of receiving such a message, I had to take it to the common gallery where you had Michael come in declaring it bizarre armchair science that was making wild speculative claims, demanding I be an expert in the field, then supported by Sapientia demanding I have a PhD to post anything and that my knowledge on the subject was not even adequate - who then followed me into another OP and continued the attack.

And yet, when I touched it up only a small bit and reposted it turned out that what I had said was in line with what standard cosmology agrees upon. I then went on to have a deep and meaningful discussion on the issue, that I challenge the moderators to read.

Then, the next day, when someone posts a thread singling out another member by name and attacking him, rather than telling that person to beat it or at least to tone it down, the moderators agree with him, grumble about the discussion they had with me - actually redirect him to that discussion in hope of winning an ally, then within about 2 minutes of that discussion run off and create this poll.

I feel this is very poor conduct. Which is a pity for such a great site.

Are you incapable or unwilling? — Sapientia

Honestly Sapientia, I'm unwilling. I could explain to you what I mean in more detail, I usually enjoy doing that a lot, but I do not think you have come here and are asking these questions in good faith, which is disappointing. Initially I did think you were interested which is why I included you in my responses.

I thought you were trying to be objective and were interested in the subject, but now I think you're just fishing about for something that makes you right and me wrong. I don't like that attitude in people - it's about as closed minded as you can get. The forum is about the exchange of ideas, Sapientia.

Regarding the comments you made about my other OP in this thread, I found them unnecessary and aggressive, and I have directed you to the reposted OP to ask if you stand by the claims you made earlier of not having enough knowledge or qualifications to broach the subject and whether you think it is still bizarre arm chair science. You've not answered, and I suspect that any answer you give will try and support your position - perhaps in a sentence I didn't dot an 'i' somewhere. You just can't admit you might have been wrong about me. I have no respect for that.

The one thing that strikes me the most is that when people are free to choose between a feather and a gun, their preference is for the latter and that too, as adults, fully(?) aware of the moral implications of the two objects. — TheMadFool

If it was me who chose the gun, the reason would be one of two fold. Firstly,I would believe the gun did not work and thus show the experiment to be false when the trigger was pressed, thus bringing the game the subject is playing with us to a conclusion. The second would be to watch closely to see if I could elicit a reaction or response from the subject who is not having one -like a child tickles someone to see if they can make them laugh. Like you I find it hard to imagine that an adult would intentionally try to kill the subject. The fact that it is a simulated environment suggests a game and games suggest solutions for the audience to solve.

Good on you. You've got a few of them right here.

You don't have to defend yourself Hachem. The censors thought your OPs were OK. Tell anyone else to bugger off.

You single out one member, Hachem, and try to embarrass him? Who the hell died and made you emperor, mate? One year member, non-subscribed, 227 comments, two Discussions including this one. The other discussion entitled:

PopSci: The secret of how life on Earth began

Wherein all you write in its entirely is:

A large and comprehensive popular-level article on BBC, outlining the history and the state of the art of origin of life research (OOL, abiogenesis):

And then link it to:
The secret of how life on Earth began

Yeah, that's real high standards there. Go blog on YouTube.

In a contracting model, the ratio of distances only grows larger, just as in expansion
— MikeL
I still don't understand how you're reaching that conclusion. — Sapientia

It apparent growth in the ratio would be a summative effect over distance. Apokrisis has steered me right though on this point. You are welcome to check out the previous comments.

Anyone can come up with ideas like that or like your petrol can, but if they don't really add anything, or, worse, if they actually detract from what we have, and create more problems than resolutions, then that doesn't go in their favour. Raising possibilities is one thing, solving problems is another. — Sapientia

Go on, check it out, and then tell me that I was full of shit.

Take a look at the The Universe as a Gas Can - Part One: Entopy OP Sapientia.

The reversible nature of translation and rotation (except for innate spin) at the time before the big bang would have seemed like a switch blinking on and off, into and out of existence. As the translations grew larger the time between the blinks grew longer and the blink itself became more sustained. Finally the translation became so large it broke a restorative constraint, becoming non-reversible and dragging rotation out with it.

If this ''amoral struggle'', a very indifferent analysis in my opinion, defines us what's the point of being good? — TheMadFool

I think that morality is perhaps an emergent compilation of many drives. It is these more fundamental drives that is being explored by Rhythm 0. We know morality is a natural cooperative expression as evidenced by societies around the world and that sometimes it all goes sideways.

Just to make sure I've got your idea right.

And then all the particles of nature are explained as varieties of fundamental spin symmetry. And their spin is complex as a massive particle - one able to be moving slower than the speed of light - could be spinning in three possible directions. A massless particle - which must travel at c - can only spin in two (for the complicated reason you can never accelerate faster than the particle and "reverse its spin" in its forward direction of travel by looking at it from in front.) — apokrisis

So these are higher order spins. We have the spin of the object about its own central axis, the spin of the object about its translational axis (the helix), a third spin could be the rotation of the helix through space and so on (like a chromosome wrapping around histones). It's funny to find higher order systems in something as simple as spin. The other spin, viewing it as you go past the object would seem like a perceptual change though, not an actual one.

So the pre-Big Bang, 'maximum' spin conformations and speeds and very tight hard reversible translations (creating the reverse spin conformations except in the innate spin). Like an out of control washing machine thrashing furiously.

These actions are timeless, anti-entropic, however, later as space expands the higher order spin conformations become stretched translationally. Translation itself undergoes space expansion. If there was no translational expansion of rotation then the relative effect on the wavelength would be compressive. Radiation would be blue shifted to the Planck temperature. Translation of rotation at a rate faster than the expansive rate of the universe would red shift it. Which does seem to be happening.

But what of the innate spin - it wouldn't undergo translational expansion. It would remain constant. So, it is this spin that is a universal constant while the fact that translation matches (or does it) space expansion renders it also a constant.

Is that it?

Spacetime curvature equalling energy density in the general relativity view — apokrisis

Yes, I see the bridge. I'm not there quite yet though. The quantum spin that creates the frequency of the Planck scale temperature, does it still exist or is it conceptual? The rest of the radiation of the universe is the result of the growing expansion of the wheel? As the energy density of the universe weakens the circle grows? Energy density is highest where space is the most curved - macroscopically that would be in gravity fields I guess. So in a way it answers whether bending space would cause mass to appear - Yes - mass as a radiating body. The deeper the curvature the tighter the frequency of radiation.

Thus quantum gravity would glue together the Planckian parts because quantum gravity represents the most extreme bending of space possible and thus able to create Planck temperatures?

We are going from amplitude 1 wavelength 0 to amplitude 0 wavelength 1. The energy of the universe is reorientating itself. That's what the universe is, the reorientation of energy. Matter and emergent systems make more sense now. Matter is not the enemy of energy. It is the holding configuration, rendering it relatively inert for a time, to allow the reconfiguration. Entropy is the master control. The 'anti-entropic' heirachical states merely allow a variably timed redistribution of energy.