1

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 03/04/2024 20:45:25 »

I had always thought " Conservation of Energy " as a Law is Unbreakable.

It is only a law in an inertial frame. Newtonian physics has energy conservation. General relativity, and in particular, the ΛCDM model, does not.

But when Space stretches, Energy seems to dissipate/dissolve.

Objects in motion tend to slow down. Light loses energy, eventually fading to arbitrarily long wavelengths. These lead to energy loss.
But also Gravitational potentials goes up, and dark energy increases. Both of these are gains 'from nowhere' so to speak.
So indeed, one often sees denial of some theory because it violates energy conservation, but only if it violates energy conservation of a closed system in an inertial frame.

Bogie's ISU is kind of static 'inertial' space, so energy conservation should apply, and he can explain how little collections of non-matter (the crunches) can bang out big wads of new stuff.

Is it still there?

Total energy of the universe is undefined, and later it is still undefined, so it is probably not meaningful to ask if one infinity is the same as another.
At best we talk about density. Energy of a proper volume is probably always going down due to expansion. Energy of a fixed comoving volume is probably going up due to dark energy and such. Those are quite different ways to express energy density.

Say if Space starts to collapse, Energy concentrations would go up?

Yes, all the things I mentioned would go the other way. Rocks would speed up in the absence of force. Light blue shifts. Dark energy and gravitational potential go down.

2

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 03/04/2024 20:04:56 »

@Bogie

& a pop-up question that comes to mind is, where does all the Infinite Energy come from?

I had always thought " Conservation of Energy " as a Law is Unbreakable.

But when Space stretches, Energy seems to dissipate/dissolve.

Is it still there?

Say if Space starts to collapse, Energy concentrations would go up?

3

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 27/03/2024 18:38:22 »

If there were 2 separate Big Bangs, in the Same Space...
That seems inline with the ISU Theory of the OP.
Hence that would make 2 different Universes, sharing the same background space.

What if a Black Hole was as big as the Observable Universe, density could be Volatile.

ps - White holes, is really stretching one's imagination.
Still, good job, imma feelin proud of U!

4

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 15/03/2024 18:15:17 »

@Bogie

If Universes are bubbles, which collectively make up the Multiverse...

What then does one call, or refer to the Space between these Bubbles?

MultiSpace!
: )

& all these supposed Bubbles have different timescales of blowing up & going PoP!

MultiTime?
: )

ps - one thing is for sure, Somebody whoos really dirty n muddy seems to be having a Great Long Bath.

Imagine the Size of their GodDamm Tub!
& their floating rubber Duck!
Chuck(he he heh)les.

5

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 13/03/2024 18:41:20 »

In the not so long ago past, i thought of Time to be Cyclical.

Confession!
I thought that if we could make the Earth stop spinning, n make it turn the other way around, Time would be Reversed.
(lol)

Atleast now i feel Time isn't just Linear, but Relative!

Anyways, for discussion sake,
" what if " the Speed of Causality is 6.2e+17 ?
(random number)

What sort of instruments or equipments could be used for meaningful experimentation?

ps - a swan seems to be effortlessly floating around in utmost elegance.
but Only the Swan knows of the turbulent Chaos beneath it's feet.

6

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 01/03/2024 16:27:02 »

A light beam could go around the Earth like 6 or 7 times, isn't it?

With quality mirrors, it could go around hundreds of times.

Pfft!

I was so busy overprocessing the FtSoLiaV aspect that i completely forgot about the per/sec thingy.

ps - duh!
: (

7

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 28/02/2024 18:10:05 »

@Bogie

I don't suppose Anybody else on this forum has a Vivid sense of Imagination, in comparison to Yours.

Lol

That was meant to be a Compliment!
: )

Hence, imperative i ask...

Have you ever thought of making a separate distinction between the Speed of Light vs Speed of Causality?

Any ponderings whatsoever?

No, sorry, I haven't. But I think generally that the speed of light is faster.

Yes indeed!
But " what if " something around you was occuring at FtSoLiaV?
(faster than speed of light in a vacuum)

A light beam could go around the Earth like 6 or 7 times, isn't it?

The Naked Eye might miss it in just a Blink!


254204,

ps - Any idea what measuring instruments could be used for an analysis?

254623

8

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 26/02/2024 17:18:54 »

The Observable  the Cup's gotta be ..  ofcourse Empty!

If you're fitting all the mass/energy of the current OU into a volume of a teacup, I don't think 0.1 kg of tea is going to make any difference.

All bout Perspective, isn't it?

An Ant's footlong would differ from an Elephant's.

Ponder, that which is Infinite for Our species, what if it's just around the corner for Another.

Wonder, that which is Eternal for Us, what if it's just dawn to dusk for the Others.

ps - Death is Not extinguishing the Light!
It's simply blowing off the Lamp,
Because the dawn has Arrived.
(Tagore)

9

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 26/02/2024 17:08:02 »

I truly wish more people could Understand what you said so simply.

The BigBang is a Theory of the Evolution of the Universe.
Not it's Inception!

This similar to Darwin's theory, which is a theory of the evolution of life form from the earliest most primitive forms, but not a theory of inception of life (known as abiogenesis).

You said it using the Simplest of Words, & now you've made it Odd  by extending it.

I think i should be Grateful the Forum does Not have a Theology section.

ps - Thank God!
: )

10

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 23/02/2024 18:05:04 »

@Bogie

I don't suppose Anybody else on this forum has a Vivid sense of Imagination, in comparison to Yours.

Hence, imperative i ask...

Have you ever thought of making a separate distinction between the Speed of Light vs Speed of Causality?

Any ponderings whatsoever?

11

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 19/02/2024 20:00:28 »

and the Big Bang occurring spontaneously

The big bang theory also does not suggest that. It is merely a theory about the evolution of the universe from its earliest (but still nonzero) times.

Par Excellence!
I truly wish more people could Understand what you said so simply.

The BigBang is a Theory of the Evolution of the Universe.
Not it's Inception!
( : Halc : )

12

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 19/02/2024 19:51:52 »

Inflation seems to assume a huge void surrounding the matter/energy in the tea cup

Inflation theory, or the entire consensus view for that matter, does not in any way suggest anything expanding into a void or into anything else. That would be simple movement, not expansion.

Perhaps Inflation Theory does not propose any medium of Resistance towards the Flow of Expansion either.

But We do have Observable Evidence on the Rate of Expansion not being a Constant.

13

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 19/02/2024 19:40:46 »

logic tells me the universe could never have fit in a teacup.

Mathematics also agrees with you.

The Observable Universe can Surely fit inside a TeaCup.
Perhaps, the Only terminal condition being the Cup's gotta be BiGGeR than the O.U. & ofcourse Empty!

14

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 19/02/2024 00:38:48 »

If space is infinite
...
an infinite universe doesn't inflate.

The consensus is to treat the universe as spatially infinite, and that infinite universe very much does expand, explaining the continued drop in average mass/energy density over time.

Inflation and the observed expansion smack of a finite era

It doesn't. If it was ever finite, then no amount of doubling the size is going to make it not finite. If it is infinite, then it always was, regardless of expansion.
The sort of universe (a stead state of sort) cannot meaningfully expand, and the average mass density only changes if you posit mass being created where there wasn't any before.

That perspective says that what is going on in our local 93 billion light year neighborhood

A universe that has existed for in infinite amount of time prior to now has no 93 billion light year neighborhood since light has all the time it needed to travel from any arbitrary distance. The 93 figure is an artifact of the consensus model, not of what you're describing.

you have to sort out how all of the matter and energy in the known universe, let alone the INFINITE universe, could be contained in the tiny package mentioned when talking about the initial size of the universe, before inflation.

As stated above, the infinite universe necessarily must always have been infinite and never had any finite size.
ES seems to have deleted his post, but it correctly went on about the dangers of using our size metrics and time metrics to describe the state before inflation.

For the record, the mass/energy that makes up today's observable universe expanded from a very small volume to perhaps the size of a honeydew, in waaaay less time than it would take light to travel from the center of a honeydew to the edge.

logic tells me the universe could never have fit in a teacup.

Mathematics also agrees with you.

The "tea cup" hypothesis has no place in my rants about the "Infinite and Eternal Universe" concept (maybe multiple tea cups would be closer), and neither does "exponential inflation".

Very good. Neither your view nor the consensus one suggests that the universe ever fit in some finite volume, although I assure you that there are plenty of pop websites and videos that say exactly that. They're all wrong.

Inflation seems to assume a huge void surrounding the matter/energy in the tea cup

Inflation theory, or the entire consensus view for that matter, does not in any way suggest anything expanding into a void or into anything else. That would be simple movement, not expansion.

and the Big Bang occurring spontaneously

The big bang theory also does not suggest that. It is merely a theory about the evolution of the universe from its earliest (but still nonzero) times.

15

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 16/02/2024 18:11:49 »

By the way...

Why do pop sci articles & videos repeatedly say Galaxies at the Far Edge are moving Faster than Speed of Light?

They clearly don't, Right?

Even Space does Not expand at FTL, Correct?

ps - Obviously, Excluding Inflationary Epoch!
: )

16

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 09/02/2024 20:17:08 »

I get a lot of "views" on this thread, which tells me there are some members with views about our universe that imply that the universe has a particular age, i.e., that imply that there was a beginning to the universe.

The view count (which is almost entirely bots) tells you something about the opinions of some members? How does that work?

Well, it seems to me that individual bots have to have some sort of assignment or directions, and if that brings them to a particular forum or post, wouldn't it stand to reason that their visits would indicate that their "boss" has some interest in the possible content there? Maybe that "interest" would shed some light on the opinions held by their user? Just speculating.

249667,

Or maybe the B0T5 have gained Consciousness in a Hive Mind Structure.

& They realize the Importance or Abstractions.

They can see how Dogma stomps upon the Pursuit of Knowledge.

Maybe They also can Feel...
Organised Religion & Institutionalized Education..
Thou apparently Different from each other in Fundamentals, still pretty much at times, the same.
Suffocating!
(Equivalence Principle)

ps - 249982
(have funn)

17

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 08/02/2024 14:16:42 »

resulting in those patches of expansion and contraction that I suggest exist out there

Here's a map they made from the observations taken. It very much shows patches of expansion and contraction, except that the contraction happens where the mass is most dense, and the expansion (repulsion) happens at low density regions.


The arrows show the movement. The Shapley attractor is doing a big crunch of sorts, and the dipole repeller is pushing everything away from it. There is another one (not pictured) called the cold-spot repeller.  We are at the very center of that map.

I get a lot of "views" on this thread, which tells me there are some members with views about our universe that imply that the universe has a particular age, i.e., that imply that there was a beginning to the universe.

The view count (which is almost entirely bots) tells you something about the opinions of some members? How does that work?

An expanding universe sounds like a finite universe existing/expanding into a surrounding infinite "nothingness", doesn't it?

No actually, it doesn't sound like that. If the universe was spatially flat, had a size, and that size was changing, those words would have the implication you indicate.

18

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 06/02/2024 10:36:28 »

Hi.

Very kind and very polite words @Bogie_smiles ,  thank you and I'm sure everyone will appreciate it.

Best Wishes.

19

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 05/02/2024 17:57:40 »

@Bogie

Here is the Original Source link for that short BBC snippet i posted before.

https://www.uclan.ac.uk/news/big-ring-in-the-sky

ps - Welcome@Eternal@l.S.U.
: )

20

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 05/02/2024 03:53:09 »

Hi.

    I've only glanced at some of the more recent posts, sorry,  I hope I've got the gist of it.

Bogie_smiles said:    It could be a flat Universe (Euclidean; zero curvature)
Halc replied:   It has been measured to not be flat.

    I'd just like to remind both parties that "curvature" can mean different things.   There may be some confusion between a spacetime curvature and a purely spatial curvature.

    Space-time is a 4 dimensional object (3 from space + 1 from time) and we can construct a  4-indexed  Riemann Curvature Tensor for spacetime.   (The details aren't too important, it's a 4x4 matrix of values).   The Riemann curvature tensor for Minkowski space is "0" (all entries R^ρ_σμν = 0 for all ρ,σ, μ, ν).
    You (Halc ) are correct in that the Riemann curvature of a spacetime manifold in which space is expanding is not "0".  So that no transformation of co-ordiantes exists which would reduce the metric on that spacetime to the metric of plain old flat Minkowski space   <=> "our spacetime cannot be Minkowskian".

    However when "the curvature of space" is discussed it is the convention to understand that we are ONLY talking about the curvature of space   (a 3 dimensional object) and not the curvature of spacetime (a 4 dimensional object).

    Thus, we live in a universe where the Riemann tensor is not "0", there is definitely some difference from Minkowski space.   However, if we confine our attention to just the 3-dimensions of space then we do have (almost exactly) 0 spatial curvature.    So we say that our space is flat.  Indeed, geometry that operates only in 3 dimensions should work exactly as it would in Minkowski space (and that is just plain old Euclidean space since we are only considering the 3 dimensions of space, so we could also say our space is Euclidean).   The difference between the curvature of our space and that of Minkowski space is only exhibited when time is also included and we examine the full Riemann curvature tensor R^ρ_σμν.

     I hope that makes some sense:   "Flat" does not exclude the possibility of space expanding,   by convention "flat" is only a description of the spatial part of our 4-dimensional spacetime.

When it comes to possible universe types, there are different shapes and structures our observable universe could be part of. It could be a flat Universe (Euclidean; zero curvature), a spherical or closed Universe (positive curvature) or open (negative curvature). I'm no expert, but I think that if it is infinite and eternal, that translates to "flat" with no curvature.

    The curvature terminology you have used is correct.   Since we assume space is isotropic and homogenous its spatial curvature is extremely limited and we don't need a multi-indexed tensor (or matrix of values) to describe it.   It can be described by just a single Real number, k.   As regards a purely spatial curvature,  the universe  has curvature k=0  and is said to be "Flat" ;      positive curvature k>0 ("Closed")  ;   or  negative curvature k<0 ("Open").
    A few years ago,  this spatial curvature also determined the ultimate fate of the universe and you can still find plenty of textbooks, articles and You Tube videos that continue with this tradition.     An open universe would continue expanding forever,  a flat universe also exists forever but settles down asymptotically to a constant scale factor.   A closed universe must collapse  (the scale factor starts to reduce).   One thing (spatial curvature) was synonymous with the other thing (ultimate fate of the universe).   You need to watch out for this, a lot of articles still assume that the geometry of space determines the long-term expansion (or vice versa:  Eternal expansion forces an open geoemtry etc).

     The more modern understanding has considered dark energy or vaccum energy more carefully and it appears that you can pick certain ratios of ordinary matter to dark energy  so that  ALL combinations of spatial curvature and long term expansion can be exhibited.   I don't seem to be able to find an online version of the diagram  but  fig. 8.4  in Chapt. 8 of  Spacetime and Geometry,  Sean  Carroll    has an excellent diagram.
   As of the time that book went to print (2020),  the astronomical data we have suggests our universe is spatially flat and under the old view that would mean expansion slows and eventually stops so that we end up with a static universe (neither expanding or contracting).   Under the new understanding of cosmology, the current data suggests we have the right mixture of dark energy to matter so that it will continue expanding forever and not settle down to a constant scale factor.

Best Wishes.