« on: 02/06/2021 02:59:07 »
My problem with this thread is that OP Bogie_Smiles, is by his own admission, a lay person, with no background in science. The question is, how is it possible that a person, without knowing the basics of how things work, put forward a postulate for multiple Universes and Multiple points of origin, in the form of multiple Big Bangs.I ended the thread because the respected member, Origin, Called me out, but I do think your question warrants a response. Is it possible that you are making an assumption that I am "a person, without knowing the basics of how things work" (the science of things), because I don't claim to have a background in science? Could it be that I have learned a little about the basics by following science discussions here and on other science forums and in my personal choices of reading material? In fact, I claim that is my source of exposure to the basics.
Even if you have been involved in such imaginings and discussions since the year 2001, if the basics of physics are unknown to you, how can any sort of valid description be given to a theory that encompasses the Universe?
Granted, with the discovery everyday of massive and more massive black holes, such a possibility is not entirely outside the bounds of reason. But, then again what is the point of raising such suppositions.This thread was started in the "new theories" sub-forum which allows for this kind of idea and continuing discussion on the topic. Though some members may want an old topic to fade into the past, I'm not one who opposes a return visit long after the original discussion, at their discretion.
True, a believable story could be written in the form of science fiction. But unless an explanation is given that starts with the basics of how nature works: The argument is non-existent.I base my ideas on the premise that the universe is infinite and has always existed and such circumstance allow for dynamic events like big bangs here and there, and for gravity caused big crunches; and with the accompanying supposition that only a certain finite amount of matter and energy can be crunched before gravity causes that crunch to collapse/bang, and on the speculation that a collapse/bang equates to a Big Bang where the "observable universe" would be limited to the after effect of such a local Big Bang event like what we observe in the observable portion of the universe. I postulate the observable universe be within a greater infinite and eternal universe beyond and including the observable portion.
Even though everything that we can observe (the observable universe) points to an expanding universe with a point of origin, those observations do not preclude the possibility of "infinite and eternal".Agreed.