Eternal Universe

[TheBigDog]

The universe exists because it can. The only alternative to its existence is non-existence which we know is not true. The natural laws that we have proven dictate that the universe exists just as it does. It has no choice in the matter. With infinite possibilities, only those things of sound principle can exist. The universe that we observe around us is of just such sound principle. There was never a time that the universe did not exist, and there will never be a time that it ceases to exist. It simply is because it must be.

 

Take the Big Bang. The closer you get to the first moment of time, the more problems it presents. You end up ultimately with something created from nothing. That violates the natural laws that we hold to be true. So we begin to speculate on new laws and new realities to justify the notion of the big bang, even when the science we already hold as being irrefutable tells us that it didn’t take place that way.

 

I am not saying that there was not a Big Bang that happened near to our corner of the universe some 15 billion years ago. I am saying that it was not the beginning. It was another event in the universe that has always been and will always be.

 

Lets take the BB in terms of a pre-existing universe. Imagine that a hugely massive singularity, Black Hole, reaches a cosmic critical mass. The internal pressure of the hole suddenly exceeds the gravity of the mass. In an instant the billions of years of matter that had been gathering into the hole are released in a massive explosion. A Shockwave is sent out into the universe at near the speed of light followed by the cooling and reconstituting matter from in the hole. As the matter cools and organizes it begins to coalesce into more familiar matter – dust, stars, galaxies – all racing from the point of explosion just behind the massive shockwave. The shockwave itself impacts all the heavenly bodies that existed outside the hole and accelerates them with some force away from the center of the explosion, but does not change entirely the nature of their pre bang motion.

 

The edge of the shockwave would be denser than normal space, and would have an effect on light that passes through it. It would slow it. So from inside the explosion you would not be able to clearly distinguish light from the outside. It would appear that everything in the universe originated with the big bang. But that would not be true. The big band as the creating force of the universe cannot be true because we would need to throw away good science to allow for it to happen. It is akin to perpetual motion. The only thing perpetual is truth. The universe was created by the truths of natural law. As long as they hold the universe will remain.

 

Bill

[GAHD]

Hmm, this reads like philosophy.

[Jay-qu]

just a little.. sounds like the anthroptic principle - things are the way they are because if they where any different we wouldnt be here to witness it!

[Harry Costas]

Hello Maybe you should read his link

 

<spamlink removed>

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bang.html

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO1PDF/V10N1ANT.pdf

<spamlink removed>

 

As for the Big Bang

 

It came about some 80 yrs ago with limited information, and the model built around it for years until most cosmoligists until recenlty were caught in the flow of thought. With recent deep field images and existing galaxies billions of years old and 13 billion light years away has put the Big Bang theory out to die.

[InfiniteNow]

Hello Maybe you should read his link

Hello Harry,

 

Maybe you could, at the VERY least, provide some segment of those links in your post, some tiny piece of information which will assist the person viewing it to discern exactly what part of the page you are referencing. I neither have the time nor the care to open each link you post and read through every sentence in the hopes of ascertaining the point you are trying to make.

 

It's a bit like you making a statement about chemistry, and me saying "Oh, hold on. Here's a chemistry book, a book on atomic structure, a guide to quantum dynamics, and blah, blah, blah... To answer your question, maybe you should read these."

 

 

I do not believe this to be the case, but it certainly sounds as if you do not understand the information well enough to put it into your own words. We cannot (or, perhaps, should not) teach about that which we do not understand.

 

 

Cheers. :eek:

[CraigD]

… There was never a time that the universe did not exist, and there will never be a time that it ceases to exist. It simply is because it must be. …

TBD is articulating, I think, a thought most of us give some credit to in answer to the thorny problem of explaining the “once, there was nothing, then something happened, and there was something” scenario.

 

Personally, I believe, but can’t make a solid scientific argument supporting, that there has “always” been “something”. However, I also believe that something – the universe – has not always had the same “natural laws”. Just as the distribution and arrangement of matter and energy appears to change over large periods of time, the rules governing their interaction may also change. At present, I find Quantum Graph Theory the most elegant and compelling scheme for explaining such change. (Warning: the linked to page is, as are nearly all “well-developed” QGT of which I’m aware, a work of fiction, describing theory that does not yet, and may never, exist, as if it were historic fact)

 

If I’m correct in my speculative belief, events such as the big bang may have resulted from abrupt change in the laws of Physics themselves – in the terminology of QGT, phase transitions in QG network, after which the QG network has remained significantly unchanged. In “deep time” (10^37 + years after the big bang, etc.), where current theory predicts various ”end of the universe” scenarios, something very different may occur due to another abrupt transition in th QG network.

[coldcreation]

cool theory bigdog.

[TheBigDog]

cool theory bigdog.

Thanks CC. I guess cool is close to cold in this case. This actually relates to my other thread about maximum gravitational force. If there is a limit to gravitational attraction then the internal expanding force of a black hole could eventually overcome the collapsing gravity. That would add merit to this theory and support the idea of big bangs being periodic events within a bigger universe.

 

Bill

[GreekTTC]

Ahh, one of my favorite topics: What is *this* all part of?

 

I'm of the opinion that our universe is not "everything there is, was or ever will be" (Carl Sagan). Imagine our universe as one of many. Not necessarily an infinity. Like bubbles floating in the water of a bath tub, all connected but independent. How do universes come to be? How did our universe come to be? Do black holes suck matter into their great eye and spit singularities out, exploding them into new universes? Compressed matter big-banging new universes into existence with regularity?

 

Science continually finds or postulates smaller and smaller building blocks of matter. Are we submicroscopic to a larger being, carbon-based or otherwise? Larger not only in size, but intelligence? As we compare our superior brain power to that of a fruit fly, how would our intelligence stack up to a being comparatively more advanced than we? So advanced that we can't even begin to imagine *reality* on the grand scale?

 

Was there even a beginning to everything? And if so, what was there before that? How can we expect our feeble minds handle the concepts of infinity and nothingness?

 

"Everything, ever." That's a mouthful.

 

Just a little something to chew on.

[HydrogenBond]

There is another way to view our universe. Because it is finite in mass and distance, it is probally also finite in time. If the mass or even the distance were infinite it would make sense that maybe time might be infinite or eternal; 2 out of 3 isn't bad. But 1 out of 3 does not seem quite logical. If it was 3 out of 3 it would be a sure thing.

[Harry Costas]

Hello Infinitenow

 

You said

 

" Re: Eternal Universe - 03-19-2006, 12:23 AM

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

 

Originally Posted by Harry Costas

Hello Maybe you should read his link

 

Hello Harry,

 

Maybe you could, at the VERY least, provide some segment of those links in your post, some tiny piece of information which will assist the person viewing it to discern exactly what part of the page you are referencing. I neither have the time nor the care to open each link you post and read through every sentence in the hopes of ascertaining the point you are trying to make.

 

It's a bit like you making a statement about chemistry, and me saying "Oh, hold on. Here's a chemistry book, a book on atomic structure, a guide to quantum dynamics, and blah, blah, blah... To answer your question, maybe you should read these."

 

 

I do not believe this to be the case, but it certainly sounds as if you do not understand the information well enough to put it into your own words. We cannot (or, perhaps, should not) teach about that which we do not understand."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look I'm not hear to teach you or even change your ideas. One can only do that by reading more.

 

As for me knowing the info,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes I do,,,,,, far more than you could ever imagine.

 

If you want my opinion on any subject, just ask. I have been there and done that and i do not want to waste my time on silly statements.

[InfiniteNow]

Look I'm not hear to teach you or even change your ideas. One can only do that by reading more.

 

As for me knowing the info,,,,,,,,,,,,,yes I do,,,,,, far more than you could ever imagine.

 

If you want my opinion on any subject, just ask. I have been there and done that and i do not want to waste my time on silly statements.

Harry,

 

All I asked is that you discuss your thoughts instead of simply posting links for others to read. I specifically stated in my post that I do not believe it to be that you do not understand, just that it's really hard to tell. Inherent in my post was a request for your opinion. What's silly (from my standpoint anyway) is your feeling that I need to repeat it.

 

 

How should I behave?

Be yourself. But please respect these ground rules:

 

1. If you make strange claims, please provide proof or at least backup of some kind. If you fail to do so, or the backup you provide is not deemed adequate, the moderators may move your post to the Strange Claims forum.
   
2. If you want to refute someone's claims, please stay calm and point out where you think they went wrong, and what kind of proof you base your own opinion on.
   
3. Do not post links to other sites as proof of your claims without commenting what the relevant sites say and why they are important to the current discussion.
4. Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted.
   
5. If you ask for opinions, respect the replies you get.
   
6. It is generally a good idea not to spend all your time in only a few topics.
   
7. Do not endlessly show us that *your* theory is the *only* truth. And don't follow this up by making people look stupid for pointing out that there are other answers, especially if they provide links and resources. It will get you banned!
   
8. Rude and offensive behaviour is not tolerated and might lead to instant banning (at the discretion of the forum staff)
   

 

If you feel I've been rude, that is certainly a possibility and will apologize. However, my point remains valid. Your statements are too often framed in the absolute, and you rarely speak from your own voice. I would like to hear what you have to share, as long as that does not consist of a web link written by somebody else.

 

In the spirit of kindness,

[HIENVN]

The universe exists because it can. The only alternative to its existence is non-existence which we know is not true. The natural laws that we have proven dictate that the universe exists just as it does. It has no choice in the matter. With infinite possibilities, only those things of sound principle can exist. The universe that we observe around us is of just such sound principle. There was never a time that the universe did not exist, and there will never be a time that it ceases to exist. It simply is because it must be.

 

Take the Big Bang. The closer you get to the first moment of time, the more problems it presents. You end up ultimately with something created from nothing. That violates the natural laws that we hold to be true. So we begin to speculate on new laws and new realities to justify the notion of the big bang, even when the science we already hold as being irrefutable tells us that it didn’t take place that way.

 

I am not saying that there was not a Big Bang that happened near to our corner of the universe some 15 billion years ago. I am saying that it was not the beginning. It was another event in the universe that has always been and will always be.

 

Lets take the BB in terms of a pre-existing universe. Imagine that a hugely massive singularity, Black Hole, reaches a cosmic critical mass. The internal pressure of the hole suddenly exceeds the gravity of the mass. In an instant the billions of years of matter that had been gathering into the hole are released in a massive explosion. A Shockwave is sent out into the universe at near the speed of light followed by the cooling and reconstituting matter from in the hole. As the matter cools and organizes it begins to coalesce into more familiar matter – dust, stars, galaxies – all racing from the point of explosion just behind the massive shockwave. The shockwave itself impacts all the heavenly bodies that existed outside the hole and accelerates them with some force away from the center of the explosion, but does not change entirely the nature of their pre bang motion.

 

The edge of the shockwave would be denser than normal space, and would have an effect on light that passes through it. It would slow it. So from inside the explosion you would not be able to clearly distinguish light from the outside. It would appear that everything in the universe originated with the big bang. But that would not be true. The big band as the creating force of the universe cannot be true because we would need to throw away good science to allow for it to happen. It is akin to perpetual motion. The only thing perpetual is truth. The universe was created by the truths of natural law. As long as they hold the universe will remain.

 

Bill

 

Universe is eternal because it have a law that Einstein wished to establish in his proposed unified field theory in 1920.

Matters in the universe always exchange their energy by the means of gravitational waves.

In an other hand, energy in the universe areconservable, and matters in the universe are cnversable too ( although Einstein thought matter can be transformed to energy with his famous formula E= mcc)

[kmarinas86]

Map of an atomic Nucleus or the map of the Universe?

 

If the speed of light is the same in all scales, then an event lasting 10^-23 seconds at one scale may be equivalent to 10^18 seconds or 31 billion years at another scale - using a 10^41 scale factor.