[Zer0]

Out here On the Lighter Side/New Theories, I feel I can say why I think the universe exists.

Although New Theories does Constrict one to stay within the context of Known Laws & Principles & Theories of the Universe.
Perhaps it's Only in Just Chat where one could excercise Wild Imagination.

It is simply that the universe has always existed, so there is no alternative to its existence.

This thought is a Hard one to Grasp. We on general terms views All things to have a Beginning & an End.
But Ofcourse, the Universe is under No Obligation to make sense to Us.

It doesn't exist because there was a Creation event sometime in the past, and it doesn't exist through some chance convergence of great forces at the beginning of time, it simple has always been here.

The Analogy of a Banyan Tree...
From the Roots grows the Trunk.
From the Trunk sprout Branches.
Branches lengthen & move back towards the Soil.
Branches transform into new Roots.
From an Ant's perspective, the Tree might seem to be Eternal & have no point of Origin.

I've talked about the idea of multiple big bangs. Given the supposed infinity of space and the eternity of time, the conclusion that there could have been more than one big bang doesn't seem to antagonize anyones sensitivities.

If it is Conceptualised in a Multiverse Hypothesis, then even thou Hard to Visualize, Not many shall Complain.

I've made it clear that I think that space is infinite, and it is filled with much the same kind of things as we observe in the space that we can see. That is not to say that somewhere in the unfathomable expanse beyond our view that there aren't things that will be surprising. Certainly there are things we will never know about, or understand. The unknowns are many and our chances of knowing most of them are slim.

The concept of Infinity is a tough one to grasp, especially with a Finite Intellect.
We might Never Know it All is Exciting & Distasteful at the same time.
Having an Insatiable Curiosity & standing in Awe & Wonder is Real Fun...But...Realising & Knowing the Thirst might Never be Quenched is Not Fun At All.

But if we pay attention to how our knowledge of the universe is expanding all the time, there is reason to believe that the "as yet unknowns" will gradually be resolved.

As the Radius of our Knowledge increases, so does the Circumference of our Ignorance.


I hope that we are able to find intelligent life out there so that we might have a chance to expand our knowledge in giant steps on the shoulders of other advanced life forms and civilizations.

I Truly Hope so too!




163411,163513,

Note to the OP.
You seem to have a Deep understanding of the Universe.
There are Alot of Other OPs on the Forum where Your Contributions would be Valued.
Maybe you should get out more often.
Tc!

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Note to the OP.
You seem to have a Deep understanding of the Universe.

I have an active imagination and a one track mind, lol.





163605,163646,

[Zer0]

Note to the OP.
You seem to have a Deep understanding of the Universe.

I have an active imagination and a one track mind, lol.





163605,163646,

I have a one track mind too.
Perhaps you use it Wisely.
I on the other hand, try to learn Everything about Everything with it.
Does not end well for Me.
Jack of all Trades, Master of None.

By the way, Mr Smiles...
I cannot Resist the Temptation any further, hence i ask out of Silly Curiosity..
What are Those numbers at the bottom of your posts?
What do they signify or stand for?
What do they mean?
163605,163646, ?

P.S. - Logic will get you from A to B...
Imagination will take you Everywhere!
Albert Einstein.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

By the way, Mr Smiles...
I cannot Resist the Temptation any further, hence i ask out of Silly Curiosity..
What are Those numbers at the bottom of your posts?
What do they signify or stand for?
What do they mean?
163605,163646, ?

P.S. - Logic will get you from A to B...
Imagination will take you Everywhere!
Albert Einstein.

The number at the bottom of my post is the number of times my post has been viewed. By looking at the last number, I can gauge how many times my previous post has been viewed so that I'm giving members enough time to see that post before I add a new post.




163780,163799,163893,

[Halc]

Logic will get you from A to B...
Imagination will take you Everywhere!
Albert Einstein.

Einstein never said that. The quote has been around only about 10 years or so. Yes, it is frequently but incorrectly attributed to Einstein.

What he did say was this in a 1929 Saturday Evening Post interview:
"I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."

The number at the bottom of my post is the number of times my post has been viewed.

That counts mostly bots and very few humans. It does up significantly every time your view any page of your topic. The bots notice when a page gets loaded. Actual members don't notice that. You might get 3 to 5 actual members reading any particular post of a topic this long.

[Zer0]

Hal...

Your insight into the 1% dna difference between a Human & Chimp really took apart Dr Tyson's argument.
Now when i think of a comparison between a Mouse & Humans, approximating only a 50% difference, i do Understand that Mice cannot be said to be half intelligent as Humans.

Information about Blackholes circling Stars was Unknown to me.
Was Nice to know that.

Your view on micro blackholes being formed in the LHC was rest assuring.
I know you don't say things just for the sake of sayin them, you mean it.
Finally i can put aside my Fears on Experimentations.

& Thanks for clearing out the Albert Einstein quote.

I get to Learn Alot from You.
& I Really Appreciate it Alot!


P.S. - DuH Mr Smiles...
That should have been an obvious & relatively easy mystery to have been solved by anyone having half a brain.
I kept thinking bout it for soo looong lol!
Anyhow, Thanks for the explanation, knowing it was still a thrilling experience for me.

Edit - 163825.
😊

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

...

P.S. - DuH Mr Smiles...
...

Thanks for the explanation, ...

And thank you for the responses ...




163913,163941,164030,164219,

[Zer0]

...

P.S. - DuH Mr Smiles...
...

Thanks for the explanation, ...

And thank you for the responses ...


163913,163941,

& You are Most Welcome!

P.S. - 163950.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

When it comes to a thread about the Big Bang, or more in context, Big Bangs, there are always new things to think about, and I figure my Big Bang thread is a great place to discuss some of them. Today, as I often do, I am thinking about eternity, infinity and multiple big bangs. At first it occurs to me how rapidly the "body of human knowledge" grows. And yet, what I view as a rapid growth of human knowledge has to be kept in perspective:

Given my premise that the universe is infinite and has always existed, time wise, that could be interpreted to mean that it has literally taken forever to arrive at the here and now, shrug, ... but hasn't it always .

I wonder if the length of that segment of 'time that has past", which in my thinking is already infinite, would be put to shame when compared to the amount of time that will pass throughout the future of time to come. I guess I should start thinking from the perspective that we are always at the "time front", the leading edge of eternity. And the time front belongs to everyone, and waits for no one ...



164280,164335,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I would like to convey the idea of being at the "time front" as another way of saying that there is a common universal "now", i.e., that there is a universal common "present moment" across the entire universe, and no matter where you are or what your relative motion is, that "present now" would be the point in time that every location would be at if we could invoke a universal freeze frame, characterized by the universal stoppage of the passing of time everywhere at the same instant.




164348,164378,164723,

[Halc]

I would like to convey the idea of being at the "time front" as another way of saying that there is a common universal "now", i.e., that there is a universal common "present moment" across the entire universe, and no matter where you are or what your relative motion is, that "present now" would be the point in time that every location would be at if we could invoke a universal freeze frame, characterized by the universal stoppage of the passing of time everywhere at the same instant.

That's called presentism. There is no big bang at all under presentism. The big bang theory is a solution to Einstein's equations from the theory or relativity, a theory whose premises contradict presentism. So it's ok to posit presentism, a far more intuitive view, but one necessarily has to abandon Einstein's work if you do this.

The prior post was full of presentist assumptions, except for the big bang discussion part.

When it comes to a thread about the Big Bang

A thread about the big bang cannot be about presentism. The theory suggests that time and space exist as dimensions of one spacetime, and being a dimension, time is not something that flows or otherwise has a preferred moment (the present).

Given my premise that the universe is infinite and has always existed

Usage of tensed verbs ('existed') implies a present. In the big bang model, the universe exists. That's it. Or maybe saying it exists is just an assumption. But saying it has existed implies a relation with a specific moment in time, and there is no such implied moment.

it has literally taken forever to arrive at the here and now

All exists equally in Einstein's view, so nothing 'takes time to arrive'. The words 'here and now' have no meaning under presentism and 'here-ism', the latter positing a preferred location in space. Positing a preferred present is about as naive as positing a preferred location in space, and nothing else exists if it isn't 'here'. A valid position, but impossible to prove. Both are supported by the same evidence which makes it funny that people presume one of them but not the other.

that segment of 'time that has past"

I think you mean 'time that has passed'.

which in my thinking is already infinite, would be put to shame when compared to the amount of time that will pass throughout the future of time to come.

That's one of the arguments questioning presentism. It's equivalent to you meeting somebody (immortal of course) who has been counting down from infinity and is just now getting to zero and declaring "There! I'm finally finished!".

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

That's called presentism. There is no big bang at all under presentism. The big bang theory is a solution to Einstein's equations from the theory of relativity, a theory whose premises contradict presentism. So it's ok to posit presentism, a far more intuitive view, but one necessarily has to abandon Einstein's work if you do this.

The prior post was full of presentist assumptions, except for the big bang discussion part.
...
A thread about the big bang cannot be about presentism. The theory suggests that time and space exist as dimensions of one spacetime, and being a dimension, time is not something that flows or otherwise has a preferred moment (the present).

Actually, I'm OK with no Big Bang, but my perception is that it is the consensus among career scientists, and I suspect they would not be considered mainstream if they insisted on an alternative cosmology.


I do go on and on about alternatives to the Big Bang in my rantings, and sorry for repeating this too often, but my preferred view of cosmology is that the universe is infinite and eternal, has always existed, i.e. no beginning and no end, and realistically (according to me) it could be no other way.




,164999,165139,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I say this lovingly, ... crazy looking Fred Hoyle is the one who coined the phrase, "Big Bang", which made enough sense that it became the consensus. But the cosmology books often raise the question, "what came before the Big Bang?", and the answer is still open to speculation, which I like doing .

It is not uncommon to see of the Big Bang referenced as the source of all the energy, matter, and wait for it, ...  all space.

I'm sorry, but I'm in favor of a multiple Big Bang story, playing out in an eternal and infinite amount of space and time; I have to add that presumably infinite space is filled with an infinite amount of matter and energy. A single Big Bang might somehow explain things within our observational range, but I find a scenario of infinite pre-existing space and an infinite number of crunches and big bangs playing out across that infinite and eternal space to be more satisfying.

I think Big Bangs happen all the time, here and there, now and then, but are far removed from each other in space, and are preceded by a lengthy period of gravitational accumulation of matter (into a lump) from a swath of surrounding space.  The growth of the crunch continues to a point of "critical mass", which when reached, the local gravitational force defeats the atomic forces at work within and among atoms, and the crunch fails/collapses with a Bang.


What's wrong with that scenario?



165200,165244,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

...

I think Big Bangs happen all the time, here and there, now and then, but are far removed from each other in space, and are preceded by a lengthy period of gravitational accumulation of matter (into a lump) from a swath of surrounding space.  The growth of the crunch continues to a point of "critical mass", which when reached, the local gravitational force defeats the atomic forces at work within and among atoms, and the crunch fails/collapses with a Bang.


What's wrong with that scenario?

I'm sure there is a lot wrong with that scenario in the Mainstream point of view, but I am not offended when considered a fringe character. The simple scenario that I propose has been stated above in single paragraphs, and often in single sentences, with only passing admission that I don't shy away from what goes against the mainstream; sorry for using this "on the lighter side, new theories" sub-forum space to expose my alternative ideas, but the places where wild ideas can be stated in reputable forums like this one are few.





165248,165276,165306,165389,

[Zer0]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

P.S. - 165429.
😊

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

P.S. - 165429.
😊

I like that model because I can see the eternal repeating process of crunch/bang. It would fit my Infinite Spongy Universe Model better though if it encompassed an infinite volume of space, multiple Big Bangs occurring here and there, now and then, as crunches reach some gravitational limit (critical capacity), whereupon the crunches Bang .





165600,165676,165744,165828,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

If we could accept an "edit" to the details of the Big Bang Theory, revising the theory to refer to a multiple number of big bang type events across infinite time and space, then instead of being a Singularity, the Big Bang could instead be considered a common repeating event throughout an infinite and timeless universe. There would have been a potentially infinite number of Big Bang type of events in the past, here and there, now and then, as there would be in the future.


In that case, a single Big Bang event would not mark the beginning of the universe or of time and space, but would mark a common event somewhere in space and in the passing of time. It would allow for an ongoing string of bangs here and there each time the necessary conditions arise.




165834,165853,

[Halc]

If we could accept an "edit" to the details of the Big Bang Theory

That's like accepting an edit to 2+2=4 to 2+3=4. A simple change, but the mathematics don't work anymore. You are free to still believe that 2+3=4 because it makes you feel happy, but it isn't a valid theory. You are also utterly free to ignore where people point out where 2+3=4 doesn't work and continue asserting it, and even asking if anything is wrong with it.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

If we could accept an "edit" to the details of the Big Bang Theory

That's like accepting an edit to 2+2=4 to 2+3=4. A simple change, but the mathematics don't work anymore. You are free to still believe that 2+3=4 because it makes you feel happy, but it isn't a valid theory. You are also utterly free to ignore where people point out where 2+3=4 doesn't work and continue asserting it, and even asking if anything is wrong with it.

True. TRUE.
That is why I hypothesize out here on the "lighter side", and I don't call my rantings a theory; they are ideas for discussion.




165953,166043,

[Zer0]

Here's some more Wild Speculation...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce

Keep on Smiling Mr Smiles!

P.S. - 165962.