[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

No one seems to doubt that infinite and eternal are two logical characteristics of the universe.

That might have been true a century ago.

But with Hubble's discovery of the expansion of the universe, people realized that the universe can't have been eternal in the past.

And when the lifecycle of stars and black holes was understood, people realized that the universe will look very different in the future (and very run-down). So if the universe is very different in the future, does that make it eternal in the future?

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

Are you thinking of a finite universe? Maybe a universe that had a beginning? If so, that is where we differ. In a universe that has always existed, and is infinite, filled with matter and energy as we see it in our field of view, the fact that stars and even galaxies have finite lives does not falsify the possibility of infinite and eternal. I'm suggesting that there is a natural cycle of matter and energy that continually plays out in the formation of stars and galaxies, that then merge, converge, crunch and bang into new expanding arenas (all part of one great contiguous expanse of space).


,74138,74250,83321,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

It is what I call the Infinite Spongy Universe (ISU) model

74588,74628,74731,77254,77292,82454,83316,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I'm still contemplating the grand, infinite and eternal universe; a satisfying activity.


83333,83363,83407,

[Origin]

83333,83363

Isn't exciting to see how many search bots have viewed this thread.  By stopping in occasionally to post a pointless comment the thread is put first in unread posts so you get more views, which is the point, I guess.  Well I hope it makes you feel important and listened to.  Now you can go away for a few months...

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

83333,83363

Isn't exciting to see how many search bots have viewed this thread.  By stopping in occasionally to post a pointless comment the thread is put first in unread posts so you get more views, which is the point, I guess.  Well I hope it makes you feel important and listened to.  Now you can go away for a few months...

Sorry, I've been looking for responses and discussion to the opening post and earlier discussions, but it is an old topic by now, and deserves to be let go to rest. I'll quit bumping it, and try to start a new topic or/and try to find a forum to see if there is any interest  in discussing ideas about the possible nature of the universe.

End of thread.


83500.83531,83551,83617,83645,83662,

[McQueen]

                  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. 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. 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? 

                     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.  Or the supposition would have to be made that what affects the Universe has no impact on its constituent parts.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

                  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.


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? 

I ended the thread (earlier, temporarily) because the respected member called me out, but I do think your question warrants a response. I don't claim to have a background in science, but 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.

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, if new thoughts and learning have come into play.

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 that such circumstances allow for dynamic events like big bangs here and there, now and then, due to gravity caused "big crunches"; and with the accompanying supposition that only a certain finite amount of matter and energy (perhaps a "critical mass") can be accumulated in a crunch before gravity causes that crunch to collapse/bang; a collapse/bang equates to a Big Bang where the "observable universe" from within the crunch would be limited to the volume of space encompassed by the expansion that occurs. I postulate that the observable universe is within a greater infinite and eternal universe, but our ability to observe beyond the boundary of our arena is limited by how far the new expanding arena allows us to look back in time. Those limits to our observations do not preclude the possibility of "infinite and eternal".



86991,87088,87196,87275.87309,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

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 see no harm in continuing the thread, rather that starting a new thread, since what I have posted so far still reflects my views. With due respect, my on-going thoughts on the topic of an infinite and eternal universe characterized by multiple big bangs here and there, now and then, is logical to me, and if is is not logical to you, why haven't you shown me the flaws in my thinking?

87535,87615,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

And based on that logic, life in the universe must not be a one off deal, but we are likely to be so greatly separated from our closest neighbors, that so far at least, discovery defies not only our best efforts, but any efforts by supposed aliens to reach out.






87633,...87838,87933,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Given such a speculated great separation between the presence of generated intelligent life forms across the universe, it would seem to support the thinking that generated life forms evolve in ways that are compatible with their generating environment. I would expect that separated, generated life forms would be quite different from one another due to differing environments.


87935,87957,88009,88048,88120,88198,88250,88394,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

...
I would expect that separated, generated life forms would be quite different from one another due to differing environments.

In addition, assuming there are multiple cases of generated intelligent life forms throughout space, they probably would be greatly separated, and would have vastly different capabilities. I'm not sure how likely it is that one intelligent life form would ever be able to detect another, even if both were trying :shrug:.




88409,88448,88483,88507,88567,88609,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

The speed of light vs the infinity of space; and then there is the chance factor that two greatly separated generated life forms will develop electromagnetic waveform communications and detect distant faint signals from space. That would be confirmation of the speculation.


88610,88723,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Out here in "New Theories", it isn't out of line to explore speculations, and one speculation that starts many discussions is the age of the universe. If it had a beginning, "what caused the first spark" is certainly a valid question, but if the universe had no beginning, then the conclusion is that the universe has always existed, is infinite and eternal. If that is the accepted philosophy that you use to base your beliefs then you are in good company IMHO.


88728,88797,

[puppypower]

One main consideration connected to multiple universes and even the future of our own universe is connected to energy. A BB event takes a lot of energy to not only make all mass and matter of the universe, E=MC2, from nothing, but it also needs energy to separate this matter into space-time while opposing gravity.

In both the single BB and multiple BB scenario,s we need a source of energy. One BB events implies a one time energy deal. Multiple BB implies a larger pool of origin energy, that bubbles up every now and then. Or a multiple BB may use the same pool as the single BB, but makes smaller additions to the one universe, with each bubble.

The one time deal of the standard BB theory is closer to what Creationism believes; universe is a one time deal. The BB was first proposed by a Priest/Scientist with neither science or religion able to quantify the science based physics for this energy; before t=0.

With life, science takes a different approach and assumes multiple life BB's; many places of life origin in the universe.  Creationism sticks to the one of approach, like a single BB; let there be light/energy, then a single source of life; breath of life! The one time occurrence premise for life, better reflects the hard science data, since no other life has even found outside the earth to create any data to contradict this. The multiple point of life theory is connected circumstantial inferences, but no data. This debate is where religion is more scientific; hard data, and science becomes a religion of speculation and gambling odds.

Another consideration is the second law connected entropy. An entropy increase will absorb energy. If the entropy of the universe has to increase, this implies energy is being lost by the universe, into increasing entropy, as time goes on. This energy being transformed into entropy cannot ever be fully reused by the universe, or else the second is wrong. The second law implies that universe is aging and losing its energy into a pool of conserved energy that is not fully reusable. The pool gets larger and universe ages.

The second law creates a problem for most cosmology theories. Many cleverly use hidden perpetual motion assumptions, such as all energy is recyclable, but the second law says this is not true.. An infinite universe is a loophole to avoid the second law. Even if we are losing energy into an entropy pool, that is off limits and causes aging, the infinite universe always has extra energy up its sleeve, thereby allowing perpetual motion and eternal life any time we need. The second law is provable but that assumption is not.

The Multiple BB scenario would still be under the second law, This scenario would also lose energy into the pool of entropy, that cannot be reused, thereby allowing universal entropy to increase. In a multiple BB scenario, one might expect see all the various stages of the universe, at the same time, with each old universe aging and each new BB addition looking like an infant universe.

If we look out into space, we do see all stages of a universes, at the same time, with telescopes. We also see the youngest stages at the edge of the universe. This may be where new BB's are be added. They may need isolation from matter to set the potential for creation. I am following the logic trail to see where it take us.

 

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Thank you Puppy Power. My supposition is that Big Bangs would be a common occurrence in an infinite universe that is filled will matter and energy, and where there is a common cycling between matter and energy as a result of big crunches (gravity) and big bangs (crunches reaching a critical capacity and "banging") here and there, now and then. I support the thinking that energy cannot be created of destroyed, but it can change from matter to its constituent wave energy and back to matter as local conditions orchestrate.


89028,89065,89179,89190,89222,89272,89332,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

So what do I mean when I suggest that there is a critical capacity that governs when crunches BANG?

It is about a maximum gravitational compression; a limit that reflects a law of nature that keeps never ending accumulations of matter from forming bigger and bigger crunches that just suck things in forever. That doesn't happen because accumulating crunches must eventually collapse under their own weight as the force of gravity eventually causes the bonds in accumulating matter to fail.


89341,89363,89376,89439,89514,89569,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

... accumulating crunches must eventually collapse under their own weight as the force of gravity eventually causes the bonds in accumulating matter to fail.

Those bonds represent energy; the contained energy of matter. When that gravity threshold is reached it causes the structural failure of matter. The bonding energy is released, explosively. A Big Bang is the result.

And each Big Bang appropriates and repurposes its own expanding patch of space by intruding into a surrounding and expanding arena.

That sequence of events would have been happening now and then for forever, here and there, across an infinite and eternal universe.




89583,59621,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

And in regard to the effect that universal perpetual Big Bang arena action has on the infinite and eternal universe, ... never ending change occurs throughout the never changing sameness of nature.






89625,89649,

[Origin]

89625,89649

Would you you quit bumping this stupid thread just to get views? 

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

89625,89649

Would you you quit bumping this stupid thread just to get views? 

I don't bump it to get views, I post my alternative ideas in the New Theories sub forum, as possible discussion starters.

Do you not think the universe is infinite? Eternal? Do you not think that is an issue in cosmology?