« on: Yesterday at 21:30:53 »
Is an infinite universe easy, or hard to comprehend?Most people have little trouble comprehending that part. It's not what's implausible. It's your physics that doesn't work. Matter suddenly banging into existence at some point in existing space, besides being a total violation of all conservation laws, also creates a gravitational singularity, even if it's only the mass of an apple, let alone a mass greater than that of the visible universe. There would be no light, new material, stars, atoms, or anything. It predicts a universe with zero light.
So I'm saying, push the idea on a non-science site, because it only works if a blind eye is turned to science.
So when I say in the title of this thread, "why not multiple big bangs?", it is not a reference to The Big Bang event, of which there is just one implied. It is a reference to possibly an infinite number of big bang type of events occurring all across space and over all time: an on-going and eternal/universal process.Are you talking about spontaneous particles appearing like you get with pair production? Nothing big like an apple? That would predict a steady state of greyness, with no receding objects, and everything sort of being born in a kind of heat-death state. Such a model was proposed a couple centuries back before entropy was understood and before expansion was observed.
Also, if new stuff gets periodically added for an infinite time, the universe necessarily must become full after some finite time. So is there a mechanism to remove old mass/energy?
However, from any local perspective, held by any past or present intelligent life form in the universe, infinity and eternity must be hard to fully comprehend.Infinite time and eternity are very different things. Eternalism just says the universe isn't something that exists in time. It doesn't posit the boundaries of time or the lack of them.
The following users thanked this post: Bogie_smiles