Question CYCLIC UNIVERSE

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Hello Catastrophe
"That means that expansion is relative to / governed by the sensory input available to the 'beholder'.
Does this fit with your posts, please? "

That sounds logical.

I will have to come to it.
off to sleep to dream
 
Last edited:
Hello
Atlan0101

"So, there is a time limit to a cycle, every single 1-dimensional cycle, a time to die, to end, in black hole, and yet no time limit whatsoever to the infinite offset parallels (to the infinity of offset parallels) of that cycling. It puts the Big Bang / Planck / Infinite (collapsed) Horizon on a permanent footing as a constant of the Multiverse-Universe (as opposed to the inconstant of 'finite' and 1-dimensional string 'universe' (u) locked into one each 'finite' cycle playing on the playing field but in no way the playing field itself (independent due to infinite offset parallel))."

The cycles on every event can be calculated.
We can look at cycle of stars, galaxies, local group of galaxies and super clusters.
In the infinite universe you have all the time in the world so to speak.

As for the Big Bang there is no evidence, the more we try to prove the BB the more we disprove it.

We can explain the BB nucleosyntheses, in a cyclic event.
 
The Big Bang (beginning) of the Big Bang (up and out) / Planck (down and in) / Infinite (collapsed Horizon is the White Hole Horizon of Universe, only non-local, non-relative, and so light loaded -- infinitely light-loaded -- it's 'dark'. It is the other side of the coin of Universe to the Black Hole Horizon. Not really two coins, but two sides and [virtually] two coins (as Hawking stated about the six-sided particle that each side of six sides is a particle and, therefore, six particles that are in fact also, singularly, just one particle), a naked singularity of coin (in this case, a naked singularity of "Horizon"). Non-Aristotelian, non-classical, quanta-universe logic raised to be the largest picture -- Big Bang stereotypical -- of all (and the smallest -- Planck stereotypical, too (the same picture)). You might think horizontal 2-dimensionally flat universe but add in vertical 2-dimensional universe that does not total four dimensions but is a multiplication of dimensions. The infinity of point-portals to the Horizon (the two Horizons, White and Black, both in fact 'dark', if you want to see it that way) projects a permanent, continuing constant, edge-universe size mural of all plural beginning as a singular Big Bang Beginning . . . like Hawking's many-sided, many-particle, [singularity] of particle. It is Alice in Wonderland / Through the Looking Glass / Quantum Mechanics' weirdness, type stuff at border horizon large and at border horizon small (the same horizon): the collapsed horizon (horizons) of infinity.

In the large picture of things, as in the small (again the same picture), forget the universe of Relativity, the too-local universe; the all-too-finitely relative, all-too-inconstant, universe.
 
Last edited:
We all know the limitations of our senses. We use instruments and use energy and mass for our references. Not our senses. However I do believe that there is a built in error with our instruments and sensors. And I believe this error effects the results of our measurements. I believe it to be the inertial mass and reactance of the mass, of our instruments, that gives us this error. Especially with high rates or small durations.

Any stimulation to a mass has an inertial reaction, and that reaction can be though of as an impedance to the stimulus. The resistance to the stimulus. The impedance is not constant with all stimuli. As a matter of fact, this impedance depends on the rate and form of the stimulus. All mass has a set of impedances that LOVE certain stimuli. And resist all others to certain degrees. Also, all mass has a set of natural vibrations, which also interact with the stimulus. And all of the interactions change with frequency or rate.

Now try to imagine attempting to analyze and understand a flux of stimuli, with such instruments and sensors.

Our present instruments and sensors gives us a blur that curves due to this error. When we develop non-reactive sensors, we might actually see what the universe looks like. AND it is not just our physical instruments, we now use our concepts of the stimulus....in software....to analyze the stimulus. So we have colored the result.....before we even measure it.

There might be some hope in these new quantum detectors. They would not be reaction-less, but might be able to separate the stimuli from the reaction. That might be sufficient. To gaze at the cosmos.
 
Opinions are always opinions.
Some maybe right, but! until it is supported by scientific knowledge its in limbo. does not mean it is wrong.
As for the origin of the universe.
where do you start?
What makes up matter?
What are the transformations that need to take place?
Can we expalin via quantum mechanics?
 
My opinion maybe different to the paper below.
It does not mean that the paper is not correct.
For now trying to understand matter contracted to the core and matter expeled from the core.


[Submitted on 14 Mar 2023]
The Role of Outflow Feedback on Accretion of Compact Objects in Accretion Disk of Active Galactic Nuclei
Ken Chen, Jia Ren, Zi-Gao Dai
Compact objects (COs) can exist and evolve in an active galactic nuclei (AGN) disk, triggering a series of attractive CO-related multi-messenger events around a supermassive black hole. To better understand the nature of an embedded CO and its surroundings and to investigate CO-related events more accurately, in this paper, we study the specific accretion process of a CO in an AGN disk and explore the role of outflow feedback. We show that the asymptotically isotropic outflow generated from the CO hyper-Eddington accretion would truncate the circum-CO disk and push out its surrounding gas, resulting in recurrent formation and refilling of an outflow cavity to intermittently stop the accretion. Applying this universal cyclic process to black holes (BHs) and neutron stars (NSs), we find that, even if it is above the Eddington rate, the mass rate accreted onto a BH is dramatically reduced compared with the initial gas captured rate and thus consumes few mass of the AGN disk; outflow feedback on a NS is generally similar, but possesses complexities on the existence of a stellar magnetic field and hard surface. We demonstrate that although outflow feedback itself may be unobservable, it remarkably alters the CO evolution via reducing its mass growth rate, and the AGN disk can survive from the otherwise drastic CO accretion overlooking outflow. In addition, we discuss the potential influence of underdense cavity on CO-related events, which embodies the significant role of outflow feedback as well.
 
Catastrophe
Said:
"Harry,
You may have seen my previous posts on cyclic models.
I have suggested that there may be some analogy obtainable by looking at flatlander 'experience'.
A flatlander living 'on' the surface of a sphere experiences expansion of the surface of his spherical universe. However, to a being able to access (n + 1) dimensions, it is evident that the flatlander's sphere is expanding in its radius, which, of course, is not accessible to the flatlander.

That means that expansion is relative to / governed by the sensory input available to the 'beholder'. "

The sphere expansion is limited to local events.
When droplets of condensates released from confined cores via dipolar vortex will expand resulting in a sphere that can be the size of our solar system and even bigger.

Cats eye Nebula is a prime example of dipolar jets and spheres forming from condensate droplets .
 
When we look at the universe.
For cyclic processes we look at
Within ( extreme estimate)

Stars our Sun 12 billion years

Galaxies: Milkyway 60 billion years

Local Group Galaxies : 200 billion years

Super Cluster: 500 billion years.

Tme for each cycle is relative.

The estimates are very rough, i will need a super computer to calculate
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Harry, I do not find anything difficult in the idea that larger aggregations operate on a larger time frame.

Consider, for example, some of the smallest entities - atoms (or even electrons) operate on what might be understood as a vibrational level. Small entities move rapidly over small distances. Conversely, large entities - being conglomerates of smaller entities - move (in total) more slowly over larger distances.

Again, it should be remembered that "distances" may not be entirely comparable when measured (estimated ? subjectively) by "instruments" existing (and comprehended) over vastly different orders of magnitude. By this, I am recognising the time element. Can you reliably compare the distance moved by an ant in one minute to the distance moved by a planet in one minute? Can you reliably assert that one distance is accurately x times the other?

Cat :)
 
Last edited:

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Quite coincidentally, after posting the above, I turned to reading An Introduction to Galaxies [Ed Mark H Jones and Robert J A Lambourne] published by Cambridge in the Open University Series. On page 87

Under the heading The distance ladder and its calibration I found:
A major problem in distance measurement is that no single method spans the entire range of astronomical distances.

I could just state QED, but it does follow with a table of various methods as applicable (on a logarithmic scale) to distance from Sun. Starting from the lowest it includes: Trigonometric parallax, Spectroscopic methods, Cepheid Variables, . . . via Tully Fisher, to . . . . . . Hubble's Law.

and, of course, these are just astronomical methods, ranging from 10 to 100 pc to over 100000000 pc.

Anyone want to extend this to apply down to an elementary particle scale?

Cat :)
 
Harry, I do not find anything difficult in the idea that larger aggregations operate on a larger time frame.

Consider, for example, the some of the smallest entities - atoms (or even electrons) operate on what might be understood as a vibrational level. Small entities move rapidly over small distances. Conversely, large entities - being conglomerates of smaller entities - move (in total) more slowly over larger distances.

Again, it should be remembered that "distances" may not be entirely comparable when measured (estimated ? subjectively) by "instruments" existing (and comprehended) over vastly different orders of magnitude. By this, I am recognising the time element. Can you reliably compare the distance moved by an ant in one minute to the distance moved by a planet in one minute? Can you reliably assert that one distance is accurately x times the other?

Cat :)
Harry should answer you both yes and no (per the principle of uncertainty), seeing in two different contextual qualifications of time. The light-time-history movement of both the ant's and of the planet's frame (thus, a space and time passed) will always be the same distance. That said, the "relative space and time" movement of the ant and the planet will be a quite different story. Unobservable, and observable: objective and subjective; what-have-you.
 
Last edited:
Ok I have read your responses.
It sounds like a Catch 22.
Please get to the point.
Time is not a physical item and therefore cannot be changed.
The method of recording time is another issue.
Get to the point, eh. The Schwarzschild radius of the universe, the constant of turn around, or constant of turn over, time is for the time being approximately 13.7 billion light years (app. 13.7 billion years). I see it as a time-figure constant of the universe. We don't just happen to be lucky with that distance from non-local BBPI Horizon to end at local black hole horizon. Once more, accelerated / accelerating vertical universe-wise (stereotypical layer-level universe-wise / Chaos Theory "zoom universe"-wise), we live within the largest Black Hole Vortex, within the largest Black Hole Horizon, of them all. As Stephen Hawking indicated a long time ago, the universe isn't going to close out because it has already closed out: It isn't going to reach 0-point because it has already reached 0-point (always has been, is, and will always be there). Its progression is always 0-point to 0-point via past history (-) thru future history (+) (again 0-point to 0-point, the same infinities of horizon / the same Infinite of Horizon).

If we ever could, though we never will, see into the point-portals of the distant collapsed Horizon up and out, and down and in, to the infinity of universes (of universe horizons) going away -- on and on and on (the same point-portals collapsed Horizon going both directions) -- to infinity in space and eternity in time, that would not change the constant of the turnaround radius, the turnover radius -- dimension of horizon to dimension of horizon -- of the universe one little bit. Being infinite parallel offset, always and forever finite-inconstant locally (black hole / white hole [nova] quantum entangling-like (the little guys as well as the Big Boys' Stereos)), is what makes it a permanent continuing constant overall. That is, or should be, the real point of "CYCLIC UNIVERSE."

"Verse" means "turn".
"Universe" means "one turn" (as in turn-in and/or turn-out) and/or more simply, "to turn."
"Multiverse" means multiple 'turns' of dimension / of dimensions / of dimensionality. It's a Multiverse-Universe (both micro-'verse' and macro-'verse' brackets (actually -- ultimately -- one and the same bracket) bracketing the relative 'verse').
 
Last edited:
I've read science-fiction stories of astronaut-like humans shrinking down into the microcosmic micro-verse of quantum mechanics and becoming fast travelers, fast travelers in the extreme of fast, of that verse there point A to point B. Well, once we break out from the Earth, we will be headed exactly toward being there in the macrocosmic macro-verse. Actually, a single wrap around the relative verse. Life will be going down-in there (into the deep) by going up-out there (into the same deep).

There is the observed-observable universe, the too stone relative, too stone slow, and then there is the unobserved-unobservable universe, never relative and zoom fast (zoom out bubble-inflationary / zoom in bubble-deflationary (vice-versa in a different but paralleling dimensional picture) fast).

Well, I have to say that at least in one respect we just may observe the second, more flexible, faster by far, universe picture.
 
Last edited:
Hello Atlan0101

You talk about the largest vortex.

The question is what and how has created that vortex.

Following people's theories is OK, but! it entraps you into the way they think.

At this moment in time, we know very little about the ongoings of the universe.
Yes, we do have various theories, but! it's a mistake to favor one over the other.

So, I encourage people to keep researching and researching and keep an open mind.

Since i believe the universe is infinite, the age predicted by the Big Bang 0f 13.7 billion years ago cannot hold water, because it is not supported by evidence.
 

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
IMHO the Universe must be infinite (not the best word).
IMHO the Universe is boundless, in space and time. I like that much better.
Infinite is a word mostly misused. As boundless, it is OK, but otherwise it is not really applicable in the real world. Not "divided by zero" which is just maths.
I cannot think of any BB resultant property which cannot be satisfied by a cyclic model.
Singularity is, of course, another meaningless word. Non-existent.

Tell me one provable property ascribed following a BB model that cannot be ascribed equally to follow a cyclic model. Once you eliminate the impossible singularity, either fits equally.


Cat :)
 
Hello Atlan0101

You talk about the largest vortex.

The question is what and how has created that vortex.

Following people's theories is OK, but! it entraps you into the way they think.

At this moment in time, we know very little about the ongoings of the universe.
Yes, we do have various theories, but! it's a mistake to favor one over the other.

So, I encourage people to keep researching and researching and keep an open mind.

Since i believe the universe is infinite, the age predicted by the Big Bang 0f 13.7 billion years ago cannot hold water, because it is not supported by evidence.
It was never "created" and is always, eternally, in paralleling rails of creation and end. The are cogs within cogs within cogs, to a wrap-around constant of always was and always will be. When Hawking agreed with the math picture of close out to 0-point, then disagreed with it at the same time by saying we are there right now and have always been there / always will be there, that applied to the picture of beginning as well. Applied in that when he said that all life has to do to be immortal in the universe is migrate as a constant thru the "life zone" of the universe toward the Horizon of Big Bang Beginning and never reach that Horizon, it always keeping its distance even if life traveled an infinite distance thru space and an eternity of time toward that Horizon. To keep its distance means there being in existence a constant of radius to it from each and every 0-point here and now wherever and whenever (similar to the horizon of Earth being the same distant horizon for you as for me even if you are half a world distant from me: meaning we both exist in it, too, for it to be constant horizon for both of us no matter where or when we are). That Horizon of the universe has the same meaning of radius in the universe from anywhere and any when (the same meaning of radius to infinities of anywhere and any when throughout infinities of universes (of universe horizons)).

Once more. It was never "created". Never! It is always, eternally, in paralleling rails of creation and end. Always both, at once. Always a quantum-like entanglement of two as one throughout the universe, throughout all the infinities of universes. And . . . always in that non-local 'Horizon' constant of the Big Time Stereo-Beginning and End I keep harping on, and will keep harping on.
 
Last edited:

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
IMHO beginning and end are just concepts exaggerated by human ignorance. We just cannot imagine anything without these, since it is beyond our usual experience.

Please avoid breaking rule by bringing religion into it. In a cyclic model, no creator is required.

If you must go into endings, send a rocket into space and it will go on until it hits something other than a star. Hit something cold, and it will stay there until it hits something else, other than a star. If it hits a star, its constituent atoms or products will stay on the star until that goes cold. As I understand it, indefinite expansion of the Universe will eventually result in total disintegration of the material Universe into atoms, or smaller. Even then, there would be no end (in our terms). And all this nonsense about infinite density and 'infinite' temperature is clearly founded on ignorance, don't you believe? It is clearly unscientific. Metaphysics at best.


Cat :)













p
 
IMHO beginning and end are just concepts exaggerated by human ignorance. We just cannot imagine anything without these, since it is beyond our usual experience.

Please avoid breaking rule by bringing religion into it. In a cyclic model, no creator is required.

If you must go into endings, send a rocket into space and it will go on until it hits something other than a star. Hit something cold, and it will stay there until it hits something else, other than a star. If it hits a star, its constituent atoms or products will stay on the star until that goes cold. As I understand it, indefinite expansion of the Universe will eventually result in total disintegration of the material Universe into atoms, or smaller. Even then, there would be no end (in our terms). And all this nonsense about infinite density and 'infinite' temperature is clearly founded on ignorance, don't you believe? It is clearly unscientific. Metaphysics at best.


Cat :)













p
I disagree on one point in particular. "Infinite density" is nothing more or less than an infinite hole. Also, "temperature" is relative, not absolute. I learned that a long, long, time ago, oddly enough, from the space fiction of E. E. "Doc" Smith.
 
billslugg
Hello Bill

You said how did it al start?
Are you saying that matter was created, as in the Big Bang?

Since matter cannot be created or destroyed.
What we have is infinite.
So we look at the ongoing processes and hope to explain how thing work.
 

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
I disagree on one point in particular. "Infinite density" is nothing more or less than an infinite hole. Also, "temperature" is relative, not absolute. I learned that a long, long, time ago, oddly enough, from the space fiction of E. E. "Doc" Smith.
In general, there is no science in "infinite density", as there is no observation or experiment - hence we have either metaphysics or good, old fashioned guesswork.

There is no "infinite" of anything in science. Only in mathematics. Hence there is no infinite in any real (ability to interact) world. We can call things whatever we like, but there can be no useful discussion without agreed terminology (aka language). I have no problem with your definition, but I suspect that you might have problems if you wish to discuss the subject seriously with anyone. ;)

Temperature is scalar. It can be measured, but the scales are, of course, arbitrary. We just assign numbers to our arbitrary selections, such as boiling points, and divide up the intervals.
In this sense, I agree that temperature is relative, but I prefer the term scalar. But you are, of course, free to call it what you like, as I am. In everyday life, definitions probably don't come up, so we could have perfectly understandable discussions without them. It was beginning to feel like Spring today, where I live in England.


Cat :)
 
billslugg
Hello Bill

You said how did it al start?
Are you saying that matter was created, as in the Big Bang?

Since matter cannot be created or destroyed.
What we have is infinite.
So we look at the ongoing processes and hope to explain how thing work.

The matter and energy created at the moment of the Big Bang are exactly negated by the negative gravitational potential energy of expansion. This continues today. As space expands and the energy of the vacuum increases, the negative gravitational potential energy of the receeding galaxies exactly cancels it out.

The mass energy balance of the Universe has always summed to zero. No net mass/energy was created thus the law of conservation of mass/energy was/is not violated.

And again, you cannot use a Cyclic Universe as a way around the supposed violation of the conservation law because there had to be a first cycle. But then, you don't need cycles to get around the conservation problem, it is not a problem anyway.
 

Latest posts