[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Get yourself settled comfortably, relax, and let your thoughts flow freely as you contemplate the "as yet" unknown, and you might surprise yourself with how the imagination quickly goes into action to transport your consciousness to interesting venues within the imagination. This does not imply the use of any mind alteration; to the contrary, instead it suggests the clearest and healthiest of risk free mind states necessary to support visualizations born within the mind. Maybe you can reach your own subconscious, which might offer other interesting ways to problem solve or to explore the unknown within.


Then open your eyes; no aftereffects, and probably no one notices you have even had the experience.



,147925,148052,148093,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Regardless of how many or how frequent Big Bang events might occur throughout the universe, the answer is a matter of speculation. Maybe there has only ever been just one, or maybe, as I posit in my rhetoric, they have been occurring forever. My argument for eternity and multiple big bangs can be examined in my posts, but I am not trying to convince anyone, I am opening my threads to an exchange of ideas.


In that vain, I'd like to offer a distinction between concentration and meditation, because both practices have benefits that can be useful in increasing your appreciation of how your mind works.


An example of a concentration exercise might be to focus on something pre selected, like the tip of a pencil, and let the mind dwell on it until you begin to notice the mind wandering off. Each time the mind begins to wander, be prepared for that mind wandering, and immediately refocus on the target.  When the wandering starts, try to let it go until it takes you back to the present, and then get back to contemplation of the pencil tip, .


This part of the discussion encourages a "visit to your own subconscious" and so just clear the conscious mind. As soon as you notice conscious thoughts creeping in, allow/encourage the return to a simple blank mind, like a clear or clean slate, to see what appears.


148248,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Just a suggestion; when you are use to achieving this "fresh mind" state, try to pose a question to the subconscious, and see if you get an answer. You may get a flash response, or you might have to sleep on it, but once the question has been posed, be alert to the "appearance" of an answer.


For example, one of my favorites ... has the universe always existed, or was there a beginning.


The "answer" I seem to get is that the universe has always existed, so there was no beginning (and presumably, no end).


Right along with that speculation about the infinity of time is the question of space; is space infinite too. I see no logical alternative to the infinity of space.


If we arrive at a conviction that both time and space are infinite and eternal, then the question that remains to my feeble thinking is the infinity of matter and energy. Infinite too, yes? Yes, yes!




148282,148387,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

What, if any, are the paradoxes of infinite space and time?


Olbers's paradox, also known as the dark night sky paradox, is an argument in astrophysics and physical cosmology that says that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe.

Olbers' paradox - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Olbers'_paradox

148390,148420,148641, 148790,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Agreed. Falsification of the static universe concept is right in line with my premise that the universe is infinite and eternal. It really seems that paradoxes don't last too long because science is always on the move, and one fertile ground for that movement is around solving anything that seems paradoxical.


149450,149519,149585,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

My problem with the thinking that there may have been only a single Big Bang event, which does seem consistent with the consensus of cosmological thinking, is that backtracking such a singular event too easily lends itself to the conclusion of a beginning.


The problem with a "beginning" is that it is closely attributed to an act of creation and to an active thinking God. I prefer to stick with my choices of an eternal and infinite universe, probably teaming with life, much of which is very distant, and receding from our ability to detect it.


149682,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

So I move on to conclude that there may have been multiple big bangs across infinite time, and each Big Bang is simply the result of the accumulation of a large but finite amount of matter and energy accumulating around a center of gravity. When that accumulation of mass has become so large that it collapses under its own gravity, it causes nature's greatest implosion, and immediately bursts in expansion, ... there you have it ... a Big Bang.

As the title of the thread says, "why not multiple big bangs" as a common feature of the natural universe; an infinitely recurring event here and there forever across infinite space and time; gosh.


149733,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

When a "Big Crunch" collapses under it own weight and expresses as a Big Bang somewhere/sometime in the vastness of space, matter is converted to energy, energy takes the form of expansion, and by the time the aftermath of a Big Bang calms down, there is a swirling ramification imprinted on a patch of space which might be a detectible disturbance observable for billions of years into the future and across large sections of space.

But it will fade into the greater universe to be recycled in some future Big Bang like the one we so thankfully enjoy.


149766,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

One thing that is notable about each Big Bang event is that there are various invariant laws of nature at work to orchestrate each one. This set of laws applies everywhere in the universe, if my speculation is right, and therefore, in an infinite universe, with an infinite number of Big Bang arenas actively playing out, you have an infinite number of everything, .


151303,151391,151889,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

It seems that humans seek some way to achieve an ultimate authority on important issues, but it also seems to be a characteristic of those efforts to always fall short of achieving firm and final decisions that will stand up to universal scrutiny. There may be ultimate truths, but we probably will never come to agreement on them. All we can do is work toward a consensus, and that consensus may be more of a dream than a reality.

If that is true, then whether there was one Big Bang or multiple big bangs isn't the most important question. A more important question is "can we ever know the ultimate truth"?


151897,151993,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Of course. There will always be various valid interpretations of the same data, none of which can be proven wrong, by definition. So said final decision will never come. Trick is to weed out at least the ones that don't match observations, but this method will never narrow the field down to 1.

Just to pick one: Einstein's relativity, which makes some assumptions that cannot be proven right or wrong. But it became a consensus because nobody came up with an alternative, not at least for 90 years. There is one now, but it sits in obscurity because it is harder to work with and makes zero predictions that relativity doesn't.

I think the alternative you refer to is string theory, isn't it?



152149,152581,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I think the alternative you refer to is string theory, isn't it?

I think string theory is one path in the search for some kind of unified field theory. It hardly sits in obscurity.

No, I'm talking about a theory that proposes alternate premises than those of special relativity.

The laws of physics are different in different inertial frames of reference.
Relative to any inertial frame of reference, light propagates with a frame dependent velocity, and is c only in one preferred frame in which the 'aether' is stationary.
There are more premises (some optional even), but those are the two that directly contradict the premises Einstein proposed.

The beginnings of such a theory was proposed by Lorentz way back in the day, but it was never generalized to include gravity for over a century, so the theory sits in obscurity. Nobody teaches it or uses it. Almost nobody has even heard of it. I don't even see it mentioned by the aetherists.

It looks like sometimes sound logic doesn't go anywhere or "get legs" because it doesn't support the standard theory/consensus. Aether theories are no exception, and the reach and support for any current theory is limited by the chasm between finite and infinite. We will never have the whole picture, and we will never know what knowledge is just out of our reach and understanding.

It is not my intention to shape this post to express pessimism. In fact I am optimistic that intelligent thinking is natural and will evolve again and again over infinite time and space.


I am saying that discovery and learning will never be complete, and in the absence of complete knowledge and understanding of the universe, we can never be sure that there aren't new understandings out there.


There is also always the concern that the understanding we have might be lost and forgotten due to the infinite passing of time itself, in spite of the infinite number of nodes of wisdom that have and will be out there, and that will have come and gone as time passes.



153447,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Even if my speculation about learning and understanding of the universe is true, there isn't yet any indication that those various nodes of understanding will be brought together so that their combined impact can be realized and utilized for the benefit of mankind.

153467,153503,

[Halc]

It looks like sometimes sound logic doesn't go anywhere or "get legs" because it doesn't support the standard theory/consensus.

Science would make no progress at all if that were true.

Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. When someone says 'science teaches such and such', he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn't teach it; experience teaches it

A theory gets legs not because of sound logic (without which your idea isn't even defensible), but because it predicts empirical observations better than the consensus. So the aether theory falls flat because it's a century too late, is needlessly more complicated, and makes zero reportable predictions that the more simple theory doesn't.

I am saying that discovery and learning will never be complete, and in the absence of complete knowledge and understanding of the universe, we can never be sure that there aren't new understandings out there.

Quite true.
I think Albert Michelson (of Michelson / Morley fame) said around 1894 that the great principles of physics had already been discovered, and that physics would henceforth be limited to finding truths in the sixth decimal place.
He was so very wrong, since this was shortly before the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics set physics back to square 1, or at least closer to 1.
So your comment is more correct than the one of this famous scientist.

There is also always the concern that the understanding we have might be lost and forgotten due to the infinite passing of time itself

'We' have only been around a very short time, so we have hardly lost anything.
Sure, other civilizations elsewhere in the galaxy/universe may have peaked at a higher understanding than will we, but that understanding was never known to us, and thus never lost.
Finding an old dead library on some planet would be nice.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

'We' have only been around a very short time, so we have hardly lost anything.
Sure, other civilizations elsewhere in the galaxy/universe may have peaked at a higher understanding than will we, but that understanding was never known to us, and thus never lost.

Or could it be said, as yet not found.

Finding an old dead library on some planet would be nice.

True, and with the appropriate Rosetta Stone.


153990,154034,154094,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Back to the wave theory of gravity; my version anyway, called the Infinite Spongy Universe. I've postulated that objects with mass both absorb and emit gravitational waves, making everything out there composed of gravitational wave energy. That would imply that living things are continually exchanging their physical content as gravitational waves flow in and out, and at the same time their living aspect, maybe called the "life force", remains there throughout the living period of the organism.


So a living organism is gravitational waves flowing in and out, and the life force is a passing temporary effect of the organization of gravitational waves? What gives life to such a convergence of gravitational wave energy? Surely it is passed along as a matter of reproduction, but would rarely, if ever, be spontaneously generated from inert elements?




154100,154200,154268,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Following that thought, living organisms, though composed of atoms and molecules, can be examined more deeply to find continual flows of gravitational wave energy flowing into and then emanating from every atom and molecule of the living thing. Those flows of wave energy are what maintains the organization and structure of the organism, and there is a similar flow of wave energy everywhere, maintaining the presence of everything.


There is a lot left to be learned about the inner workings of the tiniest things that exist and thrive down there where action of the continually frothing wave energy background, characterized by convergences at such a low level of energy that it seems almost unimaginable, are continually playing out, unless you try to explain energy interplays without it.


151254,

[Deecart]

IMHO i think that we will have the final answer when the theory of the "motion" also give the answer to : "why is there something rather than nothing ?".

But i will not explain it here. Too simple to be believed.
 

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

IMHO i think that we will have the final answer when the theory of the "motion" also give the answer to : "why is there something rather than nothing ?".

But i will not explain it here. Too simple to be believed.
 

This could seem a bit philosophical, but we wouldn't be talking about it if there was nothing.




157220,157282,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Rest easy   ; infinite space, logically having always existed, and having always been filled with no less than an infinite amount of matter and energy, teaming with life, makes the greater universe impervious to any calamity that could befall any finite portion of it.




157695,157811,