I read through these and try to understand them but mostly I don’t like those theories, because (in part) more and more there are disparities between them and observations.

So I came up with some ideas myself, one of which I wrote in here :
“New physical cosmological model : is it coherent ?”

But it may take a few years or a few thousand before we have a good cosmology.

At sea level air is about 1.25 kg/m³, so for one cubic kilometer cloud that is :
1 250 000 tons.

I put your result into table to show a problem at 51 km and above… since density decreases monotically with altitude.

Clouds can be easily 10 cubic km.

I did make I have made many mistakes, much worse than this one and on many occasions. I would say : don’t be so hard on yourself since it’s important to forgive ourselves.

I do believe the following correction should be made again to your text though :

Gravity is an [edit: inverse squared] function, so it gets weaker at an exponential a squared rate as you move away from the source.

Hey @Jeredin@lemm.ee

This one, @FlowVoid@midwest.social, has the correct answer…

So, don’t believe in the crackpot idea that it would be exponential

I need some rest now. I will try to be back some other time.

Maybe this is what would falsify my proposal… unless maybe that fluke local radiation could start at the maximum energy of the black body curve ? I will try to look into this.

What is the source of these gravitational waves?

in my post there is a link for a powerful source of these waves but any source is good enough.

How would rogue gravitational waves create matter?

Here I use an analogy with the waves in the ocean that were discovered to create very strong unexpected phenomenas. When a field is strong enough it can create matter. So, it would be something similar to Hawking radiation or creation of electron positron pairs from gamma rays.

What do you mean by “net zero energy”?

I was most impressed by a single fact of physics that all energy in ordinary matter is equal to the negative potential gravitational energy of that matter.

How would this [creation of matter and gravitational fields] increase the expansion of the universe?

I read somewhere, maybe quantum gravity theories, where one creates the other, so I would have to search it again, unless someone here can help me.

(…) black body CMB?

Please notice that inside another comment in this post I have addressed that question.

Whoops, I was updating my comment while you were responding to it. My edit answered your question ?
Also : “3d interference pattern of gravitational waves would create rogue waves.” But, what I mean by “if self coherent” is simply the question : is my model self-coherent.

@count_of_monte_carlo@lemmy.world

I might be missing something, but how would this new model reproduce the CMB? The cosmic microwave background is a black body spectrum with an extremely uniform temperature in all directions. The localized fluctuations in temperature are only a very small shift to the average.

By the integration over an exponentially expanding universe of the fluke electromagnetic radiation created locally. Maybe matter is created as neutrons that decays into hydrogen atoms which would then radiate something.

@FelipeFelop@discuss.online

Agreed, this is the most on topic post we’ve had for a while.

We both think my post was on topic, unfortunately, ShowerThoughts moderators deleted it !

Generally, conservation of energy applies in a closed system, so [it] wouldn’t apply at the creation of the system.

Plus we can’t (yet) be sure what caused the Big Bang if it happened.

Nice 😊 !

I’ve always liked the idea that matter, space and time are the way we observe the interactions of fields. So gravity waves make an interesting idea as to how part of it might work

Now we need a physicist and a mathematician, which obviously, I am not.

@PinkOwls@feddit.de

You might be interested in Dirac large numbers hypothesis, where the mass of the universe depends on the age of the universe. That kind of [ideas] would be a hint for matter being continually created.

Thanks, I will read into it.

@Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works

Oh nice, thanks for the link. Not usually the kind of thing I expect in a shower thoughts community

Since the post was erased I don’t know what link it was… maybe it’s the one about the Penrose process ?
(energy extraction from a rotating black hole)

@qjkxbmwvz@lemmy.sdf.org

This was a popular theory at one point: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model

There was no expansion in the steady state model while, in this new model, it’s easier to explain the perfect black body curve of the CMB.

In addition to CMB being tough to explain, the distant universe is different — for example, quasars are far away/old. You would expect them to be more evenly distributed in a steady-state theory.

The universe I propose is very old, so, it is not uniform.

@Jeredin@lemm.ee

Interesting idea. And the so-called “Dark Energy” also results from the rogue waves or perhaps another process?

There is no need for dark energy since this is at net zero energy.
N.B. : this is a continuation of this post :
https://lemmy.ca/post/3510924

Please join me here :
https://lemmy.ca/post/3553583 for a continuation.

Please follow developments here :
https://lemmy.ca/post/3539374
https://lemmy.ca/post/3553583

I had to rebuild completely my post (questions and answer) from other users also, because some moderator, at “ShowerThoughts”, deleted the post while it was in progress.

if we find a mechanism that continually creates matter in the universe we don’t need a big bang. Creation of matter and gravity fields, (net zero) could somehow increase the expansion of the universe. 3d interference pattern of gravitational waves would create rogue waves at specific points in SpaceTime that would create matter and the CMB.
Oops ! I just defined a new cosmological model 😄 !

Yes we had a nice exchange five or six days ago in your post :
Beyond the Darkness - Dark Matter: A Baseless Hypothesis?
I am not a physicist and I don’t work in this field. I just read since many years and I made my mind about what was going to be successful and what was not.

My best prediction so far was that JWST was going to see the same type of galaxies very far away as those in the local universe. (at least partially verified) I made that same prediction when Hubble telescope was put into orbit. Back then physicist started doubting their theories.

I have so many more ideas but I don’t want to make a wall of text.

You are talking about Penrose now and it is a nice coincidence that I wrote about him yesterday here :
https://lemmy.ca/post/3363583

Wanted to see this since a long time ! Do you have a source ? Please ?
Unless maybe you are talking about this :
Zero-point energy