1

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

« on: 08/12/2023 19:11:31 »

@OP
Have you ever thought How&Why is it Infinite & Eternal?
I'm Agreeing it is.

Even if there is something Supernatural, Why&How n for What reason are things the way they are?

Why is there Something, rather than Nothing!


ps - To see a World in a Grain of Sand,
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower.
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand & Eternity in an hour.
(Blake)

2

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

« on: 05/12/2023 23:55:47 »

we have to accept that space is infinite, unless anyone has an alternative that doesn't require the Supernatural.

There are a lot of alternatives that don't require the supernatural.
How do you explain (without supernatural) the existence of this been-there-forever universe you propose. Sure, you avoid the whole [nothing, then later something] issue, but you still need to explain the something. It's not a science problem, but rather pure philosophy. So science doesn't need to answer it, but a belief system does.

3

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

« on: 29/11/2023 18:18:35 »

The KeyWord in my previous post was  " if "...

As i do Not consider the BB model to be the Last final nail.
Nor the Law of Entropy Unbreakable.
The Future remains Undeterministic
&
Unpredictable.
No Fate!

 ps - If i was Never born,
i shall Never die...
But that does Not make me Immortal.
: )

4

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

« on: 24/11/2023 20:26:24 »

It seems to me that space must be infinite and time must be eternal, don't you agree?

I'm not in Disagreement,
I simply have a Different perspective.

If the BB model is Flawless...
Then Space itself had a Beginning,
And what Begins, has a Boundary.

If the Law of Entropy is Absolute...
Then Time itself has a limited time to Tick.


ps - ....nity is that which has No beginning, and that which has No end is Infi....!
0

5

New Theories / Re: Explanation of the mystery of the anthropic principle, universe, civilization

« on: 20/11/2023 13:43:32 »

I would even propose creating a new religion of Nothingness.

Is nothing sacred?

6

New Theories / Explanation of the mystery of the anthropic principle, universe, civilization

« on: 11/11/2023 09:10:47 »

The genetic code of the universe encodes life and intelligence (compare the anthropic principle). The explanation for the emergence of intelligence can be achieved by going back to the origins of the cosmos. Our cosmos was probably initiated by a very highly developed planetary culture from another cosmos. This would explain the genetic code of the universe.

Gregory Podgorniak, Poland, year 2023

7

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

« on: 30/10/2023 11:23:52 »

I'm not sure when "old age" occurs

It occurs at about 10 years older than whatever your current age is.
As a 10 year old, the 20 year olds looked ancient to me.

8

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

« on: 16/10/2023 20:55:56 »

It seems to me that space must be infinite and time must be eternal, don't you agree?

Depends on your definitions of time and eternal. If you picture time as something that flows, and eternal as 'unbounded in both directions', then most theories that support such flowing time do not suggest a start or end to it.

But does the universe have any option as to the upcoming gravitational forces governing the local movement of any given object? I don't think that the laws of motion have much use for the concept of randomness.

No idea what this asks. Option??  The gravitational field is determined by the arrangement of stress-energy in spacetime, at least per relativity, but relativity doesn't support flowing time so easily. Anyway, regardless of model, there's no randomness to it. Look to QM for fundamental randomness.

9

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

« on: 25/09/2023 01:32:52 »

Given all of the possible points from which to make such an observation

In an infinite universe, there are of course infinite locations from which an observable universe can be defined. But they come in clumps, which in our case is our local group of galaxies.  Any light that can reach any point in our local group of galaxies can also reach any other part of the group, hence it acts as a sort of single center of one observable universe.  This is not true of any observer not in the group. Light might reach that observer and nothing in our group, or reach our group and not that observer, not even after infinite time.
So again, yes, there are infinite points of observation when talking about an observable universe, but the different 'points' of observation are pretty far apart.

10

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

« on: 10/09/2023 21:58:08 »

Just a small OffTopic enquiry...

Suppose, just Imagine wildly, Suppose...

The Observable Universe starts
 ' Contracting ' .

& the rate of Collapse keeps increasing or Accelerating.

Well, Irrespective of whatever amount of Time it takes for a
 ' Complete Collapse '...

What will be the End Result?
A Singularity?
A humongous BH?

ps - easy to imagine Matter coalescence, but wat da hell bout d
 " Space Continuum " ?

11

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

« on: 05/09/2023 21:48:27 »

I'm not suggesting that time is an illusion

I actually never understood those arguing that time is an illusion. I mean, a physical clock measures it, and a physical device cannot measure something that doesn't exist. So to suggest that time isn't real has to also include the clock not being real, and then you not being real. That's a less popular stance, valid, probably just a refusal to apply the term 'real' to anything.

instead, time has always been passing, and everything that has happened, or is happening, or will happen, takes place somewhere in the infinite and eternal time continuum. That continuum has just one direction, and that is forward in time.

That's an intuitive philosophical stance known as presentism. Most people are presentists, especially those unfamiliar with the term, but it does contradict Einstein's theories, contradicting the most basic premises.  If you deny that all local inertial frames are equally valid, and you deny the constant speed of light, you end up with a totally different theory that came along about a century after Einstein's papers. In this theory, the universe is 3D, not 4D. It is contained by eternal passing time just like you say. There is no big bang, only a (single) big bounce. There are no black holes,. Those things are artifacts only of Einstein's theory.
Look up I. Schmelzer if you're interested, but the theory is more complicated than general relativity, so it isn't an easy read. But it supports the presentism that so many people seem to want.

But also, the time continuum is characterized by a concept called "places".

I think that would be the space continuum, not the time continuum.

12

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

« on: 03/09/2023 22:49:39 »

I associate Time with Change.
& Entropy with the Flow of Energy.

But i do Wonder, what was the nature of Time, before the BB?

A Time without Atoms or Light or Matter or Entropy...
Should i even refer to it as " Time " ?


A Space before " Space " is easier in comparison to think of.

But just bcoz the " Egg " inside which i reside, has a yolk & white...
Should i assume or conclude that the ' Hen ' is made of yolk..
& the ' Coop ' is filled with white.


ps - Imagination needs no Wings nor Sky for Flight.
But remains Confined in the Skullcage, such is it's Plight.

13

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

« on: 31/08/2023 19:56:31 »

it is during entropy that everything happens

What does the phrase 'during entropy' even mean?
That's like saying 'during momentum', like they describe a period of time.

The entropy of Earth has more or less been constant over the last billion years, and an awful lot of interesting stuff has happened during that period, so I'm not so sure if the interesting stuff happens when entropy is changing, but you also didn't say 'when entropy was changing'.

1)  the entropy I am referring to is taking place in a finite space that is surrounded by the infinite greater universe

Earth say ...
Again, entropy isn't a process that takes place. It's a value that can be measured, that can change.
 

In line with a premise that all space has always existed, any space that happens to be associated with, i.e. within the vacinity of the aftermath of a big bang event, has a higher energy density than the average density of the greater universe

High enough localized mass density (very little mass is required) that the matter would all exist within its own Schwarzschild radius, meaning it is a big collapse with no outward 'explosion' so to speak. It would result in an instant black hole with a event horizon radius far greater than the radius of our observable universe.

Just saying. That's what necessarily happens if you bang new matter into a small region of existing space. One can be in denial of gravity of course, but then why does it hurt when I fall down?

14

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

« on: 27/08/2023 22:07:10 »

This Thread is my Favourite section on TNS.
For a very Simple reason, it's here that i find folks who are Able to Think ' Out of the Box ' .


Fundamental Forces.
Entropy.
Time.
Exist " Inside " our Observable Universe.

But if there is an " Outside "...
Is it a compulsion or mandatory for all those Things to be Present in the same Form exhibiting the same Nature as within?


Definitions Matter Alot!
Perhaps We should come up with New terms or verbiage to describe Space/Time before the Big Bang.


ps - the Egg was a symbolic representation of the universe, our universe, the one within which We exist.
No egg meaning no hen & no coop.

Retro-Causality negating Quantum Sciences, is not Observed within our Box.
But can We be certain of it's non-existentiality out of da box?

In my limited understanding, i do not know anything physical, which has
' No Motion ' or " Motionless " .
Perhaps one of you could help me out with an example.

pps - Only Dreamerz know this...
In Stables of the Mind..
Unicorns Exist.
: )

15

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

« on: 21/08/2023 00:22:53 »

We know time passes, but the beginning of time is not easily established. Was there a beginning, or has time been passing eternally?

...
Obviously, All the above imagined images would have Different Time slots.
(egg-t1, crack-t2, served-t3)

Yes, true even if time isn't something that passes. Those three states still have different time slots.

If the Egg is a Fundamentally essential object, without which, no still images can be imagined.

Have no idea what you might be suggesting with this one. An egg hardly seems fundamental, and an image is not an egg, and we have plenty of images of things (unicorn is traditional) that seem not to exist.

Can We then conclude, Without the Egg, Time does not Exist.

That's like saying without the unicorn, time doesn't exist. Time can exist just fine without an egg.
Time can exist without motion, but it's harder. The paint fades over time. That's evidence of time without utilizing the motion of anything.

How do We really measure Time?

Typically by counting regular events. That works, flow or no flow. There is no way to detect flow, so one cannot measure time by any empirical detection of flow.

How do We measure Entropy without the Existence of molecules, atoms, electrons, protons, quarks etc etc?

There would be no 'we' to measure it without that stuff. Entropy isn't especially a particularly meaningful thing without matter or radiation to measure.

Hope some of this helps.

16

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

« on: 20/08/2023 22:33:06 »

We know time passes, but the beginning of time is not easily established. Was there a beginning, or has time been passing eternally? I ask those who notice this topic to comment about their views, for discussion.


204094,

I'd very much like to Discuss this a bit more if you are Interested.

Imagine a Still Image of an Egg.
Now another Still Image of a Cracked Egg.
Now imagine a plate of scrambled egg or sunny side up as per preference.

Obviously, All the above imagined images would have Different Time slots.
(egg-t1, crack-t2, served-t3)

If the Egg is a Fundamentally essential object, without which, no still images can be imagined.
No Changes conceived.
No movement, Nothing!

Can We then conclude, Without the Egg, Time does not Exist.

How do We really measure Time?
By Flow of Entropy?

& How do We measure Entropy without the Existence of molecules, atoms, electrons, protons, quarks etc etc?

ps - prapz We exist inside off of the egg & prapz We might never be able to come out of our shell.
But that should Not stop Us from Imagining a Coop!

17

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

« on: 13/08/2023 01:14:08 »

From Zero's link: Alan Guth.

Just to clarify, the quote does not appear anywhere on the Negative energy wiki page liked by Zero, but it does appear on the blurb for Alan Guth's book, which is one of the references on that wiki page.

Theory of known American theoretical physicist Alan Harvey Guth of the inflationary universe modifies the scientific Big Bang theory, describing the origin of all space, time, matter, and energy, 13.7 billion years ago, from the violent expansion of a singular point of extremely high density and temperature.

Don't know who wrote this blurb, but it is wrong, and I don't think Guth would have worded it that way. The universe was never a singular point since you can linearly (older model) or exponentially (inflation theory) expand one all you want and it will remain a point.

Yes, Guth was one of the major contributors to inflation theory, a significant change and improvement to the big bang model.
This universe is not in conflict with say the Cyclic model of Penrose, which stacks one conformal universe atop the next in infinite series. So in that sense, it does not refer to any one 'the beginning' since there are always more before and after.

If I interpret this correctly, it means that this diagram

can be stacked one atop another, but I might be wrong about that.

18

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

« on: 06/08/2023 22:18:37 »

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energy

ps - Hope Eternal is Okay n doin Well!

19

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

« on: 02/08/2023 19:04:17 »

Thanks Halc, i'll have to digest that. I had thought that Bell's theorem was connected with ruling out hidden variables but then I am only vaguely familiar with it. I need to do some studying.

20

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

« on: 02/08/2023 18:11:02 »

any chance you could expand on the statement that "the universe is not classical"

In a classical universe, there is no retro-causality (effect before cause) and that objects exist even in the absence of measurment (the moon is there even if never measured).
Bell's theorem proved that at least one of those two principles (locality, counterfactual definiteness, respectively) must be false. No valid quantum interpretation supports both. The universe cannot be classical since it cannot obey both principles.