[jan19th1980]

Going step by step, the next step is to present the precising definition of universe: Universe is everything, all there is, all space, time, energy, and all of the potentials that can exist from the presence of space, time, and energy. Universe can be thought of as the opposite of nothingness.

One can not become zero. One is not equal to zero.
Zero can not become one. Zero is not equal to one.
One is equal to one.
Now, it is clear that absolute creation and absolute destruction are not possible.
One changes to different one ( Change ). Now, it is clear that relative creation and relative destruction exist.
So, it is clear that there is no beginning for existence and there is no end for existence. But, there is a beginning for a form of existence and there is also an end to form of existence.
Now, it is clear that ... as you pointed out... this is not the only bigbang.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

One can not become zero. One is not equal to zero.
Zero can not become one. Zero is not equal to one.
One is equal to one.

Can you explain why you are pointing out those obvious facts?

Now, it is clear that absolute creation and absolute destruction are not possible.

Agreed

One changes to different one ( Change ). Now, it is clear that relative creation and relative destruction exist.

Please explain the logic of that statement.

So, it is clear that there is no beginning for existence and there is no end for existence. But, there is a beginning for a form of existence and there is also an end to form of existence.

Give me an example of a beginning of a form of existence ... How, what, when, where, why, etc.

Now, it is clear that ... as you pointed out... this is not the only bigbang.

I'm glad someone comes out in agreement with that premise.



116257,116305

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

If a Big Bang could happen, it would be a perfect explanation for why we observe everything moving away from our galaxy group, in all directions. On that basis a Big Bang is a logical explanation for what we observe. But could there be a better explanation, given an infinite and eternal universe; not a universe that began at the point in time when the Big Bang singularity is hypothesized to have occurred? 


Feel free to mention an alternative logical explanation that includes our expanding universe without a beginning.


16309,16388,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

The idea that the universe has always existed is reasonable in my view. If so, then an observable universe that is expanding would be a common observation if big bangs and big crunches were natural features of an infinite and eternal universe. Gravity certainly is an understandable component of a Big Crunch, but what is the natural force behind a Big Bang that fits the scenario? It could be some natural limit that gravity reaches as it makes the crunches grow; a limit where the ability of atoms to be further compressed fails and causes the compressed crunch to bang.


116391,116427,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I guess there is such a limit. A Big Crunch and a black hole would share the characteristic of being the result of a gravitational accumulation of matter and energy from surrounding space. A Big Crunch would eventually become a black hole if the surrounding space could feed it to completion.

But what  would stop the feeding? It would be what I call the critical capacity of a big crunch. When a Big Crunch reaches this critical capacity, any further accretion into it would put it over the limit, and the crunch would collapse because the atomic structure of the atoms at its core could no longer resist the growing compression; and it would collapse/bang.

116907,116967,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

And after the Big Bang, there are scenarios that explain the expanding observable universe, a universe that seems to have no center because the expansion seems to be accelerating in all directions. But then, an infinite and eternal universe would have no center, would it.


17025,117086,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Does the observable universe backtrack to a Big Bang event; I say yes, it looks that way.

Is the expanding observable universe part of a greater, infinite and eternal universe? I say yes to that too.

And I say yes to the idea that the greater universe is full of Big Bang arenas, some expanding, some contracting, some fading into the past, and some waiting to Bang.


117105,117131,117172,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Given all of that, Big Bangs are a common denominator across the universe. Expanding Big Bang arenas bloom out from big bang events, and those arenas intersect and overlap in an endless dance that had no beginning and that repeats itself over and over; always has and always will, IMHO.


117174,117275,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Obviously, our home Big Bang arena has at least one hospitable planet that is teaming with life forms of an almost endless variety. That fact alone gives me confidence that our "living" planet is not the only one. We search and maybe we will find other examples of life out there, or maybe they will find us. I don't expect to be communicating with intelligent life forms on planets that are light years away, but it seems possible that a very technically advanced culture could orchestrate an electromagnetic signal that we (or any equally advanced culture) would recognize as being from an intelligent source. Let's keep looking, and maybe put a bit more Joint Earth Source funding into the effort.


117771,117861,117896,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

We can't be certain about the how's and when's, but life arrises from matter and energy when the conditions are right, which can be called the "generative force".

Once life arrises, the "evolvative force" takes it from there, according to my hypotheses.


117899,118136,118189,118253,118278,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I believe that the origination of life, and of new life forms, happens as the result of a natural iterative process. When the elements of life are present, and the time needed for such an iterative process to happen, fall in place together.


118281,118381,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Those iterative processes are continually playing out across infinite space, so let's not be surprised when we discover extraterrestrial life. I expect news on the topic in my lifetime, and I'm pretty old by now, lol.


118388,118464,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

In the mean time, we wait and listen. Given the idea that life has always existed, and the fact that I doubt that the Earth has always existed, the first thing that comes to my mind is that life on Earth could have either been generated here or could have been "seeded" here, or both; but probably generated and evolved here. So though I have expressed confidence that we will detect other life on distant planets in the future, it is very unlikely that they will look like us or think like us.


119091,119292,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I like the premise that the infinite and eternal universe is filled with matter and energy, and features multiple big bangs here and there, now and then. When I refer to matter, it is reference to atoms and the atomic particles of which matter is composed. In addition, I have to acknowledge the energy contained within matter and the forces that sustain the presence of matter. It is all intriguing, but as an observer generally I view it matter-of-factly. Matter is almost everywhere in our environment, and even in outer space, we depend on matter and the ingenuity of man to get it and us there.


119295,119544,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Across infinite time and space, the elements and conditions necessary for life logically could have always existed, and just as logically could have occurred over and over again, over all time. Given the possibility of that eternal condition, I consider the possibility that there would have been a potentially infinite number of times and places in the universe where intelligence has arisen and gone on to establish footholds and evolve to extremely high capabilities, equal to and/or exceeding that achieved by our version of humanity.


I submit that the number of opportunities for intelligent life forms to arise like that, and to reach higher and higher levels of capability, is potentially infinite over all time and space, and that the most advanced life forms are still evolving, and will go on to greater and grander things.


If so, given a potentially infinite number of such occasions for advanced intelligent life forms to do so, I conclude that the height of evolution that can be achieved by nature is almost unlimited when considered across endless and eternal space and time.

119549,119611,119690,

[Origin]

Go away and take this silly blog with you....

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Go away and take this silly blog with you....

History tells me you aren't open to discussion :Shrug:.


119743,119809,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Across infinite time and space, the elements and conditions necessary for life logically could have always existed, and just as logically could have occurred over and over again, over all time. Given the possibility of that eternal condition, I consider the possibility that there would have been a potentially infinite number of times and places in the universe where intelligence has arisen and gone on to establish footholds and evolve to extremely high capabilities, equal to and/or exceeding that achieved by our version of humanity.


I submit that the number of opportunities for intelligent life forms to arise like that, and to reach higher and higher levels of capability, is potentially infinite over all time and space, and that the most advanced life forms are still evolving, and will go on to greater and grander things.
"

If so, given a potentially infinite number of such occasions for advanced intelligent life forms to do so, I conclude that the height of evolution that can be achieved by nature is almost unlimited when considered across endless and eternal space and time.

I'm guessing that this is the post that inspired one member to respond negatively.

So let's take a look at it to see if we can get to the bottom of what is objectionable, considering this is "The Lighter Side" in the "New Theories" section:

The first post aimed at getting to the bottom of it starts out with me positing that the universe is infinite and eternal.


If any members don't believe that the universe is infinite and eternal, then maybe some believe that there was a beginning. Perhaps they would like to defend that position by saying how the universe began, or at least what basis there is for believing there was a beginning, as opposed to my premise that the universe has always existed?



119834,119999,120023,120070,120092,120137,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I think that one defense for the "beginning" premise held by some is that there is apparent expansion of the observable universe. No matter what direction we look, it appears that almost everything outside our galaxy is moving away from us. Will anyone (Origin or anyone else) weigh in on that? What explanation is there for the observed expansion if the universe didn't have a beginning some many billions of years ago?



My answer is that there is an infinite greater universe that has always existed beyond our observable universe, and that greater universe is not expanding because it has always been out there and has always been infinite.

120228,120286,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

The observed expansion is backtracked to a Big Bang, but the standard cosmological explanation of the Big Bang does not answer the questions as well as the explanation that says our Big Bang was not the beginning of the universe, but was merely the beginning of our observable expanding Big Bang arena, which is just one common event within a greater infinite and eternal universe, IMHO.


120365,120443,120545,