size of universe

<font color="pink"><font face="Comic Sans MS"><center><b><font size="4">The form of a particle in my Fractal Foam Model</font id="size4"></b></center>
I may have a partial answer to one of the questions I posed in my last post. Let’s think, for a moment, in two dimensions. Imagine a 2D random foam on a sheet of paper; now place a lens on the paper with a flat side of the lens down and a convex side on top; the mean size of bubbles behind the lens will appear larger than elsewhere. This could be a random variation in bubble size; after all, we are talking about a random foam of infinite extent.

Now, move the lens across the paper; this illustrates how a particle might move like a wave thru the foam. Place two such lenses side-by-side and let them orbit around a common center; this illustrates how particles, driven by Lesage-type forces, might orbit each other to form larger particles. I’m just guessing that a mathematical model of this arrangement might reveal the true nature of inertia and momentum.

I do not know, yet, whether a concave lens is a better illustration; it depends on whether the speed of P-waves thru the foam would be faster where the mean bubble size is larger or smaller. I’m fairly sure that it takes a more complex shape to accomplish fusion or fission of the P-waves (necessary to explain Lesage-type forces); so the true picture of a particle is probably much more complex. At least, this oversimplified illustration explains how a particle can move thru the ether unimpeded, without friction and without leaving a wake or dragging the ether with it. It also might explain how particle motion resembles wave motion and why a particle cannot move faster than the speed of S-waves in the ether—which I believe is the speed of light.

<center><b><font size="3">Warped space</font id="size3"></b></center>
The above illustration can be extended to large concentrations of particles to explain how space can be warped, as it is in <i>GR</i>; maybe space warping is not just a mathematical 4-space figment of the imagination, after all. I believe space, as we know it, is defined by the concentration of bubbles in the ether.

Suppose from an exterior point of view, two cubes appear to be of equal size, but in the center of cube #1 is a spherical region of smaller, more numerous ether bubbles; the ether in cube #2 and elsewhere in the vicinity is uniform. Cube #1 contains more ether bubbles, and therefore more space, than cube #2. From the viewpoint of an observer in the center of cube #1, the faces of the cube are bulged outward, and cube #2 is distorted and is smaller than cube #1.

Note: I am not deliberately trying to rescue <i>GR</i>; I am simply observing a possible similarity between it and my own model. Anyway, I have always believed the difference between <i>GR</i> and <i>LR</i> is merely semantic and of no real consequence. TV objects that <i>GR</i>’s warping of space is purely mathematical and lacks any material significance. In my Fractal Foam Model, apparently, the warping of space <i>does</i> have a real material significance; I cannot say whether my version of warped space is mathematically equivalent to that of <i>GR</i>. Like Einstein, I must rely on mathematicians to turn my imagination into something more rigorous—any volunteers? </font id="Comic Sans MS"></font id="pink">

<font color="pink"><font face="Comic Sans MS">One reason I feel so good about <i>FF</i> (my Fractal Foam Model) is the fact that it suggests so may new explanations so quickly. After posting that last one, I hardly had time to warm up my pillow before the next hit me! As I was saying, last night, I don’t know whether a convex lens or a concave one is the correct illustration for matter. Well, what if one type lens illustrates matter, and the other illustrates antimatter?

That would imply that the warping of space by concentrations of antimatter should be opposite that caused by concentrations of matter; the more antimatter you have in a region dominated by antimatter, the less space you would have within a given volume, as seen from outside the region. If there is such a region, this gives us a powerful tool for identifying it. However; I strongly suspect that practically all the antimatter disappeared from our scale (our universe), billions of years ago, and shrank to become the sub-universe whose cosmic foam is now our ether. Since our time is running backwards from a sub-universe point of view, those billions of years are the future; our universe is shrinking and will eventually be the same size as theirs. Of course, I still have to solve the riddle of phase changes; what happens when one of our galaxies is as big as a bubble of our cosmic foam? Will it still be a foam, or something else? </font id="Comic Sans MS"></font id="pink">

<font color="pink"><font size="3"><font face="Comic Sans MS">I've made a few major changes to my Fractal Foam Model of Universes since my last post, here. The latest is now viewable on my Yahoo!360 blog .

Mainly, I abandoned the idea that "blobs" (regions of larger/smaller bubble size) move thru the foam. Instead, p-waves probably shake the blobs, causing them to emit s-waves (high-energy photons.

Also, I propose that interaction between p-waves and s-waves causes the s-waves to orbit one another, thus converting some or all of their e/m energy to mass. With a lot of heavy math, this mechanism may explain the basis for all particles and forces. </font id="Comic Sans MS"></font id="size3"></font id="pink">