[puppypower]

Matter is like the celling, while energy is like the floor in terms of their relative spectrum of potential. If we plotted energy and then matter as a function of E=MC2, matter only appears high up the y-axis.

Energy and matter are not things to be compared and contrasted with each other. Matter has energy. Light has energy. Photons and electrons have energy. It is incorrect to say that light or photons are energy. Photons have energy as a property. Unlike matter or light, energy is not some independent physical entity. There is no such thing as "pure" energy. Trying to put matter and energy on a single axis is therefore nonsensical. The reason that photons have to be of such high (gamma ray) energies to form particles like electron-positron pairs is because electrons and positrons have a minimum mass-energy. Photons do not, and can have a mass-energy that is arbitrarily low.

To solve the origin of the universe problem, I had to think outside the box of convention. I agree that it is unconventional to plot photons and matter(mass) on the same graph, using the equivalency formula E=MC2 and experimental data. In this plot  various types of matter and all the various wavelengths of photons are plotted along the x-axis, and their E equivalence is plotted on the Y-axis.

If you do this, matter is always much higher up the Y-axis, at the ceiling of the graph. Photons start at the floor Y=0+, and reach toward the ceiling. This simple plot established the hierarchy of energy potential; all forms of energy (potential) with matter at the ceiling.

Mass cannot move at the speed of light. Whereas, photons can move at the speed of light. There is a discontinuity between mass particles and C, which the plot shows and which was also suggested by SR.

Theoretically, there is a pure C reference, below the largest wavelength photons, which define the largest discontinuity with mass; slightly below the energy(photon) floor. Since C is the same in all inertial references, this speed of light reference, is also the same in all references and would appear to exist at Y=0, on the graph. Infinite wavelength energy with zero frequency is an example of a discontinuity of time and distance, using SR where V=C.  I call this the ground state.

This is reasonable so far, albeit unconventional. The question is how can you form a universe, from such a universal ground state of zero potential energy,and still form a universe with lots of mass that exists at higher potential, relative to the ground state, while also being discontinuous with it?

What came to mind was the concept of entropy. The term entropy was invented by scientists who were developing the early steam engines in the 19th century. When they ran experiments and did an energy balance, they constantly found that there was missing energy. This missing energy was measurable. They defined the lost energy as entropy. This loss of energy is how I solved the ground state problem, relative to mass.

Entropy, according to the second law has to increase. As entropy increases we will get an affect that looks like an energy sink, and missing energy. At infinite entropy, the energy sink will tie up all the energy,.so there is none left. At the ground state, the energy is conserved but it s the form of entropy, and is not useable, and therefore appears not to exist if we run an experiment. Energy that is not available for use, does not leave a measurable affect. However, energy is conserved in the entropy but can only be make available, if we use more energy than we expect to get. This type of experiment can make the ground state appear as negative energy.

If the infinite entropy can be lowered, somehow to a finite level, energy can be released. We can move between ice and water and cause the entropy to decrease or increase, with the affect being an energy release, or an energy sink. The next challenge was  to somehow explain how the  discontinuity in time and distance at C, translates to infinite entropy and its manipulation.

If we assumed the ground state was discontinuous in terms of space-time that would logically imply space and time are  no longer connected. It does not necessarily means time and space do not exist, but they themselves would have to exist in a way, that was discontinuous with traditional properties of time and space found in space-time. For this to all work, the new properties need to be able to able to express infinite entropy, so all the ends are tied.

Moving in time without the constraint of distance and moving in space without the constraint of time, makes provisions for the two discontinuities; space-time and space and time, while theoretically allowing infinite entropy. It was the simplest solution.

[Bored chemist]

I had to think outside the box of convention.

It's not "convention" that's the problem.
You are thinking outside the box of "things that work".

This is reasonable so far

If it is "reasonable" then you should be able to show the reason for it.
Please do so.

They defined the lost energy as entropy.

Energy and entropy do not even have the same units.
They are different things.

Entropy, according to the second law has to increase.

Only for an isolated system and the things you have talked about so far may not be isolated.

At infinite entropy,

That's not possible, mathematically, or physically.

If the infinite entropy can be lowered, somehow to a finite level,

Do you propose to change the impossible thing by using magic?

You certainly cant use science.

We can move between ice and water and cause the entropy to decrease or increase,

Entropy, according to the second law has to increase.

Make up your mind.

If we assumed the ground state was discontinuous in terms of space-time that would

Word salad.

[Kryptid]

If you do this, matter is always much higher up the Y-axis, at the ceiling of the graph

That depends on how you make the graph. If you plot from no energy (0 eV) to the Planck energy (1.22 x 10²⁸ eV), then every particle in the Universe that has been observed so far will be extraordinarily close to the bottom of the graph. The most energetic particle detected so far was a cosmic ray particle with an energy of 3.2 x 10²⁰ eV: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh-My-God_particle This is less than even one-millionth of the Planck energy.

moving in space without the constraint of time

This would only work if you could travel at infinite speed.

[puppypower]

If you do this, matter is always much higher up the Y-axis, at the ceiling of the graph

That depends on how you make the graph. If you plot from no energy (0 eV) to the Planck energy (1.22 x 10²⁸ eV), then every particle in the Universe that has been observed so far will be extraordinarily close to the bottom of the graph. The most energetic particle detected so far was a cosmic ray particle with an energy of 3.2 x 10²⁰ eV: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh-My-God_particle This is less than even one-millionth of the Planck energy.

moving in space without the constraint of time

This would only work if you could travel at infinite speed.

I found this quote below from the internet: 

Galactic cosmic rays are atom fragments such as protons (positively charged particles), electrons (negatively charged particles) and atomic nuclei. ... Roughly 90 percent of cosmic ray nuclei are hydrogen (protons) and 9 percent are helium (alpha particles).May 11, 2018

You helped to make my point that matter is at the top of the graph, albeit, the experimental data is not at the theoretical limit of the Planck energy. The main point is matter, on a relative scale of potential, is the ceiling of the universe.

I have used the term potential and not potential energy, since not all potential has to do with energy. Potential can also exist in time or distance. For example, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle implies extra distance potential added to space-time. Distance potential allows the electron, for example, to occupy a volume instead of being traceable as a point. A space-time calculation has uncertainty in position and/or momentum that can be simply explained with some added distance potential. This extra distance potential comes from the interaction of matter with the ground state, where distance is independent of time.

Time potential be experimentally explained with a simple thought experiment. Probability is time dependent. If I had a six sided dice and all the time in the world to throw it again and again the odds of each side will be the same. Say I lowered the allotted time to 1 second to throw the dice and calculate the odds. You may get one throw. The odds change for the dice, with that one side looking causal and the other sides unlikely. If in need another side I add time. By controlling time potential you can control the odds.

You said that moving in space without the constraint of time would take infinite speed. This may be true relative to a relative inertial reference. However, this is not true for the ground state reference.

If you traveled at the speed of light, the finite universe would appear as a point-instant. It is not compressed, but rather all appears to overlap as a point in this reference. This allows you to be everything, at the same time due to the point overlap. If I had a microscope and magnified the point, since the microscope does not change time, but only deals with distances. I can be anywhere in the magnified universe point, in an instant; omnipresent.

When we look at the edge of the universe with a telescope, we see the edge, but via energy that has traveled for eons, that is now nearby. This nearby energy takes an instant to reach our eyes even  though it represents something very far away. We do not have to wait for real time energy with eons of time delay. This is a rough analogy of the magnification of the point-instant universe, allowing real time omnipresence in detail.

[Kryptid]

The main point is matter, on a relative scale of potential, is the ceiling of the universe.

Matter does not occupy a single point on the graph, so this statement is nonsense. Do you realize just how big the difference in energy is between the electron's rest mass and that high-energy cosmic ray proton?

[Dave Lev]

As far as we can tell, the Universe as a whole doesn't have a center. Alternatively, you could argue that every point in space everywhere is the "center". The Big Bang was not an explosion, contrary to popular belief. It was a rapid expansion of space itself, with matter and energy simply carried along for the ride. All points in space were at the same place in the beginning: the singularity.

Dear Krptid
What kind of a real 3D universe can meet your following description?
" the Universe as a whole doesn't have a center. Alternatively, you could argue that every point in space everywhere is the "center"."
If the universe was limited or finite, than by definition at some point you must get to its edge.
Therefore, theoretically if it has a ball shape, this finite universe should have a clear center.
However, as there is no edge to our universe than it is a clear indication that our Universe is unlimited. In other words - it is infinite.
At any spot in that infinite universe, the distance to any direction is infinite.
Therefore, only infinite Universe doesn't have a center or alternatively, you could argue that every point in that universe is the "center"."
So, why is it so difficult for our scientists to admit that our Universe must be infinite???

[Kryptid]

Dave, I'm not debating with you any longer on any subject matter. You are impervious to reasoning and evidence.

[puppypower]

The main point is matter, on a relative scale of potential, is the ceiling of the universe.

Matter does not occupy a single point on the graph, so this statement is nonsense. Do you realize just how big the difference in energy is between the electron's rest mass and that high-energy cosmic ray proton?

I was talking about the preponderance of the physical data of the universe, with electrons and protons; hydrogen proton, the majority of matter and mass. The black body radiation of space is the preponderance of photon data. There are exceptions on both ends of the scale. A high energy cosmic ray proton is just an extreme proton. It is not a new state of matter other than in terms of cataloging. The main point was matter is at higher potential than energy. If the speed of light is the ground state we would expect to see both matter and energy showing signs of moving down the y-axis toward the universe ground state.

1. Matter lowers potential via the forces of nature and gives off energy at C. This is matter lowering potential, piecemeal, by giving off lower potential energy at C. The C reference of the energy output brings matter closer to the ground state.

2. Universal energy also appears to be lowering potential, as evident in the universal red shift. Hydrogen emissions, for example, are heading in the direction of the ground state; lower and lower energy value for photons.

3. Gravity causes mass to clump, which according to General Relativity causes space-time to curve, The accumulative mass reference due to gravity and GR moves toward the C reference, This is approximated by the black hole.

One last observation is the theory predicts the existence of a quantum universe. We currently know that the universe is quantized but existing theory cannot explain why. That is a huge soft spot  in existing theory since that has an impact of other things.

In terms of this model, the quantum affects are connected to time potential. If the universe was governed by a continuos model, where the hydrogen atom, for example, had infinite energy levels, instead of a small set of quantized energy levels, the progression of the universe would take longer. For A to go to B, having infinite options, would take longer than A to B with limited options. A quantum universe saves time, getting to the ground state.

This is an application go the example of rolling a six sided dice. If we have the time for infinite rolls of the dice, all sides will come up the same ratio; equal odds. If I limit the dice rolling to only one second, there is only time for one roll of the dice. In this case, only one side will come up with a probability of 1.0. Quantum loads the dice of the universe in time (potential). The universe was not designed to be permanent, which is why it loses potential at all ends at the same time.

As far as we can tell, the Universe as a whole doesn't have a center. Alternatively, you could argue that every point in space everywhere is the "center". The Big Bang was not an explosion, contrary to popular belief. It was a rapid expansion of space itself, with matter and energy simply carried along for the ride. All points in space were at the same place in the beginning: the singularity.

The data we collect from space does appear to suggest this model. However, there is a practical problem with this connected to the conservation of energy. A Relative reference approach does not allow everyone, in all relative references, to do the exact same energy balance for the universe.

As a simple example, say a train was in motion, due to the burning of diesel fuel, and a second person was at the station sitting on a bench on a diet. We know the train has the energy. If the man on the bench is deaf and he did no know the train had burned diesel, but pretends he using this eyes and assumers he the moving frame and the train is stationary, the math comes out the same for relative velocity and motion, but his energy balance will be all wrong.

Relative reference gives us no way to do an universal energy balance. However, it does allow us to use the old tradition that the earth is the center of the universe, since the model says all point are a center. That allows the earth-centric approach that is psychologically pleasing.

If we could do an energy balance, then we could calculate a center of energy and a center of mass. However, since existing theory cannot start before the BB, it has an origin (0,0,0,0) problem and we do not know how model this gap. I'm trying to fill in that gap.

[Origin]

The main point is matter, on a relative scale of potential, is the ceiling of the universe.

Matter does not occupy a single point on the graph, so this statement is nonsense. Do you realize just how big the difference in energy is between the electron's rest mass and that high-energy cosmic ray proton?

I was talking about the preponderance of the physical data of the universe, with electrons and protons; hydrogen proton, the majority of matter and mass. The black body radiation of space is the preponderance of photon data. There are exceptions on both ends of the scale. A high energy cosmic ray proton is just an extreme proton. It is not a new state of matter other than in terms of cataloging. The main point was matter is at higher potential than energy. If the speed of light is the ground state we would expect to see both matter and energy showing signs of moving down the y-axis toward the universe ground state.

1. Matter lowers potential via the forces of nature and gives off energy at C. This is matter lowering potential, piecemeal, by giving off lower potential energy at C. The C reference of the energy output brings matter closer to the ground state.

2. Universal energy also appears to be lowering potential, as evident in the universal red shift. Hydrogen emissions, for example, are heading in the direction of the ground state; lower and lower energy value for photons.

3. Gravity causes mass to clump, which according to General Relativity causes space-time to curve, The accumulative mass reference due to gravity and GR moves toward the C reference, This is approximated by the black hole.

One last observation is the theory predicts the existence of a quantum universe. We currently know that the universe is quantized but existing theory cannot explain why. That is a huge soft spot  in existing theory since that has an impact of other things.

In terms of this model, the quantum affects are connected to time potential. If the universe was governed by a continuos model, where the hydrogen atom, for example, had infinite energy levels, instead of a small set of quantized energy levels, the progression of the universe would take longer. For A to go to B, having infinite options, would take longer than A to B with limited options. A quantum universe saves time, getting to the ground state.

This is an application go the example of rolling a six sided dice. If we have the time for infinite rolls of the dice, all sides will come up the same ratio; equal odds. If I limit the dice rolling to only one second, there is only time for one roll of the dice. In this case, only one side will come up with a probability of 1.0. Quantum loads the dice of the universe in time (potential). The universe was not designed to be permanent, which is why it loses potential at all ends at the same time.

As far as we can tell, the Universe as a whole doesn't have a center. Alternatively, you could argue that every point in space everywhere is the "center". The Big Bang was not an explosion, contrary to popular belief. It was a rapid expansion of space itself, with matter and energy simply carried along for the ride. All points in space were at the same place in the beginning: the singularity.

The data we collect from space does appear to suggest this model. However, there is a practical problem with this connected to the conservation of energy. A Relative reference approach does not allow everyone, in all relative references, to do the exact same energy balance for the universe.

As a simple example, say a train was in motion, due to the burning of diesel fuel, and a second person was at the station sitting on a bench on a diet. We know the train has the energy. If the man on the bench is deaf and he did no know the train had burned diesel, but pretends he using this eyes and assumers he the moving frame and the train is stationary, the math comes out the same for relative velocity and motion, but his energy balance will be all wrong.

Relative reference gives us no way to do an universal energy balance. However, it does allow us to use the old tradition that the earth is the center of the universe, since the model says all point are a center. That allows the earth-centric approach that is psychologically pleasing.

If we could do an energy balance, then we could calculate a center of energy and a center of mass. However, since existing theory cannot start before the BB, it has an origin (0,0,0,0) problem and we do not know how model this gap. I'm trying to fill in that gap.

Making up silly stuff is not science.  Most of your posts sound like something I would expect to hear from college freshman sitting around a dorm room and smoking a bong.

[puppypower]

Let me ask a few questions concerning main stream theory. How does main stream theory explain the basis for our quantum universe? How does main stream theory explain the basis for the Heinsenberg Uncertainty Principle? You guys have had a hundred years to do this, so you must have tied this loose ends, by now?

How far back can existing theory go in terms of the formation of the universe. Does it still have to start with a singularity event that magically appears without any explanation? How does current theory explain the observed superstructures of the universe, if space-time expanded at all points at the same time? How did galaxies and star form so fast in early creation if space was expanding and making it harder?

Why do we use the concepts of dark energy and dark matter if they cannot be proven to exist in the lab? Why not use unicorns since legion  has it that unicorns can fart dark energy? Are we putting the cart; conclusions, before the horse; proof" ?Is this slight of hand and violation of science protocol an artifact of the relative reference assumptions, unable to close the universal energy balance,

If these questions cannot be answered, should existing theory be banished to alternate theory until remediation is over? Or does the subjectivity of prestige and tradition, give it a pass, even though science is supposed to be objective?

If a new theory can deal with these things and standard cannot, which is better?

[Kryptid]

If a new theory can deal with these things and standard cannot, which is better?

The new theory (if it is actually a scientific theory and not just speculation) would be better. The problem is, what you have isn't a scientific theory.

[tehghost]

I see some great stuff here guys. keep it up. However for those of you with degree's. (obviously you have them because your replies are governed by strict guidelines from a textbook)

The books and even the instructors you learned from at school where ever you learned it, are all approved by the United states Gov board of education (or where ever you got them from)
The fact is, the united states government HIDES things from its people, also COVERS stuff up to HIDE the truth. If you believe that wholeheartedly and are insistent that the whole universe is what they say it is in a textbook. Or from a instructor that learned it from a textbook. And argue it to the point of nonsense.

Then there would be no reason for this discussion board. pretty cut and dry. If you actually believe 100% of what they say there is no hope. Don't be so hard on peoples ideas. Anyone can be a copy and paste expert and sound smart when they are really not. Quoting textbooks is not the purpose of this message board. We all share hypothesis and ideas here.
Anyways should be an eye opener. even to the experienced educated person cannot deny the Governments agenda of education.

Ghost

[Kryptid]

The fact is, the united states government HIDES things from its people, also COVERS stuff up to HIDE the truth.

Do you have evidence to back up that assertion? In particular, that scientific knowledge is censored in textbooks?

[The Spoon]

I see some great stuff here guys. keep it up. However for those of you with degree's. (obviously you have them because your replies are governed by strict guidelines from a textbook)

The books and even the instructors you learned from at school where ever you learned it, are all approved by the United states Gov board of education (or where ever you got them from)
The fact is, the united states government HIDES things from its people, also COVERS stuff up to HIDE the truth. If you believe that wholeheartedly and are insistent that the whole universe is what they say it is in a textbook. Or from a instructor that learned it from a textbook. And argue it to the point of nonsense.

Then there would be no reason for this discussion board. pretty cut and dry. If you actually believe 100% of what they say there is no hope. Don't be so hard on peoples ideas. Anyone can be a copy and paste expert and sound smart when they are really not. Quoting textbooks is not the purpose of this message board. We all share hypothesis and ideas here.
Anyways should be an eye opener. even to the experienced educated person cannot deny the Governments agenda of education.

Ghost

What utter idiotic crap.

[suhail jalbout (OP)]

                                                                   ADDENDUM TO OP

 There are many cosmological theories through history. It started with Brahmanda “Cosmic Egg” Universe around 15th-12th Century B.C, and then followed by Anaxagorian Universe in the 5th Century B.C. and so on until our present day theories such as the BBBH Universe, Multiverse, and Quantum Virtual Particles Universe. These theories are an outstanding mosaic of human brain analysis. Every time a cosmological theory hits the scientific world, questions pop up: what was before or from where it came?

All the cosmological theories admit that our universe and all its contents exist. Let us observe the space in which our universe exists when we strip it from its contents and send them to a BBBH. The anticipated results are as follows:

1.       Remove everything that the naked eye can see. When an observer looks at the space with his naked eye he will find it very dark and void. Well this is not true. It is a “false void” No 1.
2.       Remove all what we can see through a telescope. When an observer looks at the space using a telescope he will find the space is void. This is not true. It is a “false void” No 2.
3.       Remove all what we can see under a microscope with magnification 1,000,000 times. When an observer looks at the space using a microscope he will find the space is void. This is not true.  It is a “false void” No 3.
4.       Remove all what we cannot see, due to limitations in manufacturing very powerful microscopes, but we can envisage their existence by theoretical microscopes (referring to quantum foam virtual particles that appear and disappear after infinitesimal fractions of a second and are quadrillions of times smaller than atomic nuclei). To an observer, the space is now completely void and it does not exist anymore, “real void”.

What about the BBBH that was created? There are two possibilities:

1.   Assume the contents of item 4 mentioned above remained in space and were not transferred to the BBBH. In this case the BBBH exists in “false void” No 3. Before the BBBH explodes or (have a massive expansion or evaporates) it is quite possible that “false void” No 3 creates its own universe in accordance with Hawking-Mlodinow (Grand Design, 2010) and Lawrence Krauss (A Universe from Nothing, 2012).  But this should have happened eons ago assuming that “false void” No 3 can “stand alone”. In other words if “false void” No 3 can create a universe, then it should have been created from eternity with infinite age. This is not the case because the age of the oldest stars in our universe is only 13.8 b.y. while there are few which are older but not exceeding 14.5 b.y. This may indicate that “false void” No 3 is an integral part of existing universes and does not exist “standing alone”. Most probably quantum foam is an essential component needed to form a universe. Without its presence a universe cannot form.

2.   Assume it was possible to transfer all the contents of item 4 mentioned above. This means the BBBH exists in “real void” that does not create matter and energy from nothing because it does not exist. When the BBBH explodes, it creates its own space. One second later, the space will be filled with neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-matter, photons, neutrinos, and quantum foam. The space between these particles is “false void” No 3 while the space that contains the real and virtual particles is “false void” No 2. The process will then continue to form a complete universe. In conclusion,  BBBHs form universes and universes form BBBHs.

[Bored chemist]

There are many cosmological theories through history. It started with Brahmanda “Cosmic Egg” Universe around 15th-12th Century B.C, and then followed by Anaxagorian Universe in the 5th Century B.C

Those are not theories in the scientific sense

[jerrygg38]

In response to SJ:
   Your write up is very good. Energy always existed. There is no such thing as time. So the question of when the energy came to be is meaningless. There was no before or after.  All we have is two light speed dimensions and energy flows between them forever. Our time is mere distance/lightspeed.

[Bored chemist]

There is no such thing as time.

Then there's nothing to stop you posting next week#'s lottery draw.
Go on.

All we have is two light speed dimensions and energy flows between them forever. Our time is mere distance/lightspeed.

Hogwash.

[jerrygg38]

Kryptoid said:
Do you have evidence to back up that assertion? In particular, that scientific knowledge is censored in textbooks?
  Did you know that there are secret libraries such as the one I used to study in Defense companies. Sadly scientific information is often branded secret or top secret  in the study papers by MIT and other universities. Some things must be kept secret for sure such as the submarine frequencies. Yet ordinary studies of Einstein's work do not appear to have much security problems. Yet once they are declared secret or higher they are locked away.

[puppypower]

 

In response to SJ:
   Your write up is very good. Energy always existed. There is no such thing as time. So the question of when the energy came to be is meaningless. There was no before or after.  All we have is two light speed dimensions and energy flows between them forever. Our time is mere distance/lightspeed.

If you look at time, time spontaneously moves in one direction, which is to the future. Yet we; science and culture,  model/measure time using clocks, which cycle like energy and waves. Clock do not move in one direction and therefore do not behave the same way as time.The concept of  Reincarnation, models time as a cyclic event. However, although science does not observe time repeating itself, it still uses the model to measure time; midnight each day.

Clocks do not behave in the same way as the time. This appears to be creating a system side distortion and error in judgement. This is like using a meter stick to measure temperature. The result will be a round about approximation method, that gives practical results, but nevertheless misrepresents the phenomena in question.  I would like to hear the justification for this, knowing that we know, that  time does not cycle; blind leading the blind.

A better way to represent time, is the concept of entropy, instead of cyclic energy. According to the second law, the entropy of the universe has to increase. Entropy moves in one direction. Entropy is not a cyclic phenomena, like reincarnation, energy and waves. Rather entropy moves in one direction over time. Each time entropy moves forward or increases, it absorbs energy making that energy unusable. In this respect, if you use two references to explain time, then time would be connected to the entropic potential between the two references.

As an example of an entropy clock, consider the dead fish clock. With this clock, you go to the fish market and buy a fresh but dead fish. You place the fish on the counter, at room temperature and wait until it starts to stink. This is our unit of time. This entropy clock does not cycle, since we cannot un-stink the decaying dead fish. Like time, this clock moves in one direction. Interestingly, if we increase the temperature, time speeds up; the fish decays faster. Of we place it in the fridge, time slows. The dead fish clock behaves similar to the way energy clocks behave with relativity, with temperature taking the place of velocity for the dead fish clock.

A dead fish clock would be hard to use to get to the work on time each day. It is not cyclic nor is   exactly repeatable. The next dead fish will be different. The system will be slightly different each time, due to entropy and random events working on the fish. This type of clock makes time itself subject to change, as time moves forward. The expanding universe, by expanding space-time, is causing reference time to change with time.

The second law, and its parallel to time, tells us something about the alpha and omega of the universe. Since the second law says the entropy of the universe has to increase, it stands to reason, that entropy within the earliest universe was less than it is today. This extrapolates to a time of near zero entropy; primordial atom. While if we extrapolate this to the future of time, we would head to a state of infinite entropy.

If we ignore the cyclic nature of time, as modeled with cyclic clocks, we get a situation where the universe ends at infinite entropy. For it to begin again we need to reach a state of zero entropy. There is a discontinuous function; new dead fish clock. This new universe will not exactly be the same. It may last longer or shorter.