[Zer0]

If there were 2 separate Big Bangs, in the Same Space...
That seems inline with the ISU Theory of the OP.
Hence that would make 2 different Universes, sharing the same background space.

What if a Black Hole was as big as the Observable Universe, density could be Volatile.

ps - White holes, is really stretching one's imagination.
Still, good job, imma feelin proud of U!

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Zero, in the ISU cosmology, there is just one universe, it is infinite, it has always existed, and it has always hosted life forms here and there.


260814,
267960,

[Zer0]

@Bogie

& a pop-up question that comes to mind is, where does all the Infinite Energy come from?

I had always thought " Conservation of Energy " as a Law is Unbreakable.

But when Space stretches, Energy seems to dissipate/dissolve.

Is it still there?

Say if Space starts to collapse, Energy concentrations would go up?

[Halc]

I had always thought " Conservation of Energy " as a Law is Unbreakable.

It is only a law in an inertial frame. Newtonian physics has energy conservation. General relativity, and in particular, the ΛCDM model, does not.

But when Space stretches, Energy seems to dissipate/dissolve.

Objects in motion tend to slow down. Light loses energy, eventually fading to arbitrarily long wavelengths. These lead to energy loss.
But also Gravitational potentials goes up, and dark energy increases. Both of these are gains 'from nowhere' so to speak.
So indeed, one often sees denial of some theory because it violates energy conservation, but only if it violates energy conservation of a closed system in an inertial frame.

Bogie's ISU is kind of static 'inertial' space, so energy conservation should apply, and he can explain how little collections of non-matter (the crunches) can bang out big wads of new stuff.

Is it still there?

Total energy of the universe is undefined, and later it is still undefined, so it is probably not meaningful to ask if one infinity is the same as another.
At best we talk about density. Energy of a proper volume is probably always going down due to expansion. Energy of a fixed comoving volume is probably going up due to dark energy and such. Those are quite different ways to express energy density.

Say if Space starts to collapse, Energy concentrations would go up?

Yes, all the things I mentioned would go the other way. Rocks would speed up in the absence of force. Light blue shifts. Dark energy and gravitational potential go down.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

If my premise about the universe having always existed, and along with it, the presence of life having always existed too, and spreading here and there, repeatedly, from various places of origin both nearby and in out-of-the-way places throughout the infinite universe, then I think that what we see here on Earth is in line the natural course of events.

Given that premise, chance has favored us, but the chance of our Earthly refuge here being permanent probably should be considered tenuous, temporary. However, not to worry, because there is no reason to believe that in an infinite universe, there aren't already other refuges, populated with advanced lifeforms to keep the thinking going.


288000,288522,293477,293654,294447,295193,296040,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

If my premise about the universe having always existed, and along with it, the presence of life having always existed too, and spreading here and there, repeatedly, from various places of origin both nearby and in out-of-the-way places throughout the infinite universe, then I think that what we see here on Earth is in line the natural course of events.

Given that premise, chance has favored us, but the chance of our Earthly refuge here being permanent probably should be considered tenuous, temporary. However, not to worry, because there is no reason to believe that in an infinite universe, there aren't already other refuges, populated with advanced lifeforms to keep the thinking going.


288000,288522,293477,293654,294447,295193,296040,

Not that I think there is anything temporary about our universe as a whole, or life in the universe, but given the perpetual motion and ever-changing nature of the grand universe, ... I wonder if continual change isn't the eternal constant?   

407753,407757,410391,412540,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

If my premise about the universe having always existed, and along with it, the presence of life having always existed too, and spreading here and there, repeatedly, from various places of origin both nearby and in out-of-the-way places throughout the infinite universe, then I think that what we see here on Earth is in line the natural course of events.

Given that premise, chance has favored us, but the chance of our Earthly refuge here being permanent probably should be considered tenuous, temporary. However, not to worry, because there is no reason to believe that in an infinite universe, there aren't already other refuges, populated with advanced lifeforms to keep the thinking going.


288000,288522,293477,293654,294447,295193,296040,


Not that I think there is anything temporary about our universe as a whole, or life in the universe, but given the perpetual motion and ever-changing nature of the grand universe, ... I wonder if continual change isn't the eternal constant?   

407753,407757,410391,412540,

I post the "views count" on my thread just to determine if anyone besides me is around, lol. Clearly, over time, views accumulate, and my guess is that some of the viewers are repeat visitors. Just for the record, I check back, and respond. I think it is good for there to be places on the forum where you can get a human response to your chat, though this is a remote and dusty corner of the net .


413130,414079,414684,415254,418220,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Yes, all the things I mentioned would go the other way. Rocks would speed up in the absence of force. Light blue shifts. Dark energy and gravitational potential go down.

Probably true, and that is in line with what I refer to as "the sameness doctrine", in which I assume an infinite universe, i.e., on the grandest scale, any large patch of space will be similar to any other large patch of space.

Opposing arguments welcomed.




418254,418448,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

... in line with what I refer to as "the sameness doctrine", in which I assume an infinite universe, i.e., on the grandest scale, any large patch of space will be similar to any other large patch of space.

It's called the cosmological principle, that the universe is both homogeneous (the part you mention), and isotropic, meaning it looks the same in all directions.

I think that an infinite universe has no center, so any vantage point can serve as the center of the universe for discussion purposes. Homogeneous and isotropic covers it all too if you qualify that as being "on the large enough scale".


Another fallacy in my characterization of the center of the "infinite universe", aside from the fact that an infinite universe has no center, is that viewing the universe "as a whole" is not an option if you characterize it as infinite, which I do.





419263,419463,419510,420284,420335,421321,421624

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

If we step back from explanations for the existence of the universe, like "creation". Big Bang, or something from nothing, I come to a personal conclusion that the universe has always existed. I have posed this hypothesis before but there doesn't seem to be a consensus, and I don't understand why there isn't a consensus on the "always existed" idea.

Is there anyone here that would like to explain why the "always existed" idea isn't a more common explanation, or perhaps offer support for that premise?




422593,424759,

[Halc]

If we step back from explanations for the existence of the universe, like "creation". Big Bang, or something from nothing,

If one was to generalize Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) the way that special relativity was generalized to general relativity (which included gravity and energy, both missing from SR and LET), then you have exactly that: A universe where time is not anywhere bounded, and thus has existed for all time. No relativity of simultaneity, time dilation, big bang, no black holes, the latter two of which are bounds to time. Those are predictions of GR, and we're talking an alternative here.

I don't understand why there isn't a consensus on the "always existed" idea.  Is there anyone here that would like to explain why the "always existed" idea isn't a more common explanation, or perhaps offer support for that premise?

Because GR and the big bang are both pretty entrenched in science, and few would give up all those predictions just to jump onto an aether bandwagon just to get unbounded time, despite no useful predictions and being a far more complicated model, so it's never going to be a commonly held view.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

If we step back from explanations for the existence of the universe, like "creation". Big Bang, or something from nothing,

If one was to generalize Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) the way that special relativity was generalized to general relativity (which included gravity and energy, both missing from SR and LET), then you have exactly that: A universe where time is not anywhere bounded, and thus has existed for all time. No relativity of simultaneity, time dilation, big bang, no black holes, the latter two of which are bounds to time. Those are predictions of GR, and we're talking an alternative here.

...

Great, who needs all of those complications?

I like the idea that the universe is unbounded, and the passing of time has always existed. Maybe that is the implication of "time is not bounded". I feel fortunate that someone of your knowledge and intellect takes the time to review my musings ... thank you.


424977,425048,425246.425294,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

... with time not bounded, it seems that anything that CAN happen, will eventually happen, sometime, somewhere. So what's the worst that can happen? Wait for it, because it may well be in our future...


But on the other hand, maybe the best could happen instead ...




426330,427347,

[Halc]

... with time not bounded, it seems that anything that CAN happen, will eventually happen, sometime, somewhere.

1) Only possible things can happen, so in this 3 (spatial) dimension universe, you're never going to get a 5D spider or something like that. Waiting a long time isn't going to help.

2) Doesn't require infinite time. The consensus model is already one of infinite space, and given that, everything possible not only could happen, but does with certainty.  Classically, there are exact copies of you out there (computed to be around 10**(10**28) meters* away.

3) Un-classically, all those possible outcomes are a LOT closer, like take away all the zeroes.

Wait for it, because it may well be in our future...

A view by humans of a universe that appears 12 billion years old is a very possible state, but no amount of waiting will put that in our future.


*  Meters ... light-years ... angstroms   The unit doesn't really matter with a number like that.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

12 billion years may be our approximation of the time since our big bang ...

But I don't know if the reality of the hypothesized BIG BANG exactly matches the consensus view, and I don't know if any depiction of the history of our universe captures the story correctly. However, if "always existed" is the correct time designation, which suits my fancy , then "infinite and eternal" would seem to be a good candidate for reality.


That would make the universe pretty enduring, lol. No need for a beginning or even a creation; seems the simpleist explanation.  Let's have some opposition or some alternatives.





427376,427466,428566,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

12 billion years may be our approximation of the time since our big bang ...

But I don't know if the reality of the hypothesized BIG BANG exactly matches the consensus view, and I don't know if any depiction of the history of our universe captures the story correctly. However, if "always existed" is the correct time designation, which suits my fancy , then "infinite and eternal" would seem to be a good candidate for reality.


That would make the universe pretty enduring, lol. No need for a beginning or even a creation; seems the simpleist explanation.  Let's have some opposition or some alternatives.





427376,427466,428566,

OK, how about an initial Creation? Comments?


430764,431012,433835,

[Halc]

A view by humans of a universe that appears 12 billion years old is a very possible state, but no amount of waiting will put that in our future.

12 billion years may be our approximation of the time since our big bang ...

But I didn't say that waiting might produce an incorrect approximation like that. Waiting will make it look older to us, however poorly we re-interpret that data in our future.
I gave that as an example of something possible that nevertheless cannot occur by waiting for it, even over infinite more time.
We can simplify the statement to: "A view by humans of a universe that appears younger that it appears to us today is a very possible state, but no amount of us waiting will put that in our future."

No need for a beginning or even a creation; seems the simpleist explanation.

Indeed, it does. A universe that contains time cannot be created, so I totally agree with this.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

No need for a beginning or even a creation; seems the simpleist explanation.

Indeed, it does. A universe that contains time cannot be created, so I totally agree with this.

We (you and I, and many others) can and do take creation off the table, and I think on this site many would agree with that.    I hope that if others are viewing this, they would help by "chiming" in.

I think that "No beginning" might bring into play a new twist to the widely held consensus, especially when combined with "spatially infinite" (Even though all that ruins my "green meanies did it" philosophy. )  My real philosophy, as said probably too many times, is that the infinite universe has always existed and so it is eternal and infinite.


With that said often enough, let me say that in my view, a universe that is infinite in space and time has existed through a potentially infinite number of possible universal circumstances. "Nothing new" under the cosmic sky (shrug).


 431071,436945,

[Halc]

A universe that contains time cannot be created

I think that "No beginning" might bring into play a new twist to the widely held consensus,

A beginning and a creation are very different concepts.  A creation implies that at one time there was no <created thing>, and at a later time there was. That requires an outside action like a deity or something. I know of no scientific view that supports that.

A beginning means time is bounded at some initial value, which is what the big bang is for those that choose that interpretation, supported by general relativity and not by alternative interpretations. But GR is 'consensus'.

My real philosophy, as said probably too many times, is that the infinite universe has always existed and so it is eternal and infinite

Consensus probably does say that if the universe meaningfully 'exists', then there was never a time that it didn't.  This is encapsulated by the term 'eternalism' (see SEP article https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#PresEterGrowBlocTheo )

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I don't think there is much question about it; the universe has always existed and there have been big bangs going on, here and there, across all of that infinite space and infinite time.

So I don't have any trouble using "infinite and eternal" as two of the main descriptors of the universe; let's say the pillars of infinity, i.e., no beginning, no possibility of an end to it all, and really no way of knowing the truth/reality of it all.


Oh, there will be ends in places near and far, but no permanent end across all of space and time, and no end to finite patches of life in a potentially infinite number of places across all of that space and time.

I like to refer to it as the "Sameness Doctrine", with the caveat being that there must be infinite space and time for the doctrine to properly apply.


438805,438882,