Eternal Universe Concept - The Successor to the Big Bang Theory

[newtonian]

Sorry, no time to check that but watch out for zero in calculations.<br /><br />and what definition of infinity are you using?<br /><br />and those particles winking in and out do have mass.

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">what definition of infinity are you using?</font><br /><br />Infinty in terms of the size of a particle, whether it is infintely large or infinitely small<br /><br />In the equation e=mc, mass is proportional energy.<br /><br />http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q="mass+is+proportional+to+energy"<br /><br />The subatomic particles which we are made of have infinitely more energy than infintely small particles, and our planet's energy and mass is nil compared to mass and energy of infinitely large subatomic particles.

 

[kmarinas86]

"Entropy" is refreshed and hydrogen is restored (recycled) at the Hyper-Galactic Mass. A universe expanding into nothing will decay faster than clouds of clouds of galaxies bounded by a large Hyper-Galactic mass (see first post of this thread)

 

[newtonian]

eequalsmc2- Energy decays???<br /><br />Life decays at death according to tendencies caused by entropy.<br /><br />According to the law of conservation of matter and energy, energy is not actually destroyed, but rather converted into matter- and vice versa.<br /><br />Entropy has more than one definition. Generally, entropy is tending towards the most stable state.<br /><br />A more specific definition is in the field of thermodynamics - which involves heat flow <br /><br />It is also linked to chemistry - for example, the most thermodyanically favorable chemical reaction products in a given environment will predominate- and math is also involved.<br /><br />I agree entropy would favor a beginning - and most astronomers agree that our universe has a beginning, as also stated in Genesis 1:1.<br /><br />However, our universe was once thought to be destined to collapse- now many agree it will expand forever as Isaiah 40:22 favors.<br /><br />For me, the origin of the universe must involve more than mere entropy- otherwise, where did the energy come from in the first place?<br /><br />A clue, I believe, is found in life itself. <br /><br />While entropy causes chemical reactions to proceed towards the most stable state, life is characteristically unstable.<br /><br />Yet, life does not actually violate entropy but rather directs reactions in an informational way which actually overcomes the direction entropy would normally cause.<br /><br />In fact, this is basically the difference between life and death - as. for example, a dead cell vs. a living cell.<br /><br />However, without life, how would you propose our universe had its origin in view of entropy?

 

[newtonian]

stevehw33 - Well, I basically agree with you, but not with the way you respond to those you disagree with.<br /><br />For example, you posted:<br /><br />"This Eternal Universe claim is so far from scientific verification and in many ways contrary to the known facts, such as the point source of the big Bang."<br /><br />While I like the big bang theory, it is NOT established fact.<br /><br />For example, please define the point source of the big bang.<br /><br />How large was that point?<br /><br />What did that point contain?<br /><br />Why did it begin to expand?<br /><br />How did the 4 forces of physics come to have their relative strengths such that stars and life as we know it became possible?<br /><br />How did the other laws and properties which govern our universe come to be in that point source?<br /><br />The problem with your post is that you did not give any solid scientific reasons for believing you are correct. <br /><br />Now if you had stated the laws governing radioactive decay, and pointed to the fact that radioactive elements should not exist if the universe was eternal- then we would have some real evidence to talk about.<br /><br />So why, exactly, do you believe the big bang model - upon what evidence exactly?<br /><br />And what, specifically, can you identify as unscientific in Kmarinas86's posted model?<br /><br />Can you 86 it?<br />

 

[kmarinas86]

We need more stuff like the James Webb Telescope.

 

[newtonian]

kmarinas86- Can you give a better definition of infinity?<br /><br />It is best not to use the word in its own definition.<br /><br />Can you specifiy what you mean by an infinitely small particle?<br /><br />Do you simply mean with a radius less than Planck length? <br /><br />There is a difference between "vanishingly small" and "infinitely small."<br /><br />Are you familiar with limits? For example, if we trace back the origin of our universe to its size at the start of the big bang, according to that theory, some have our universe being of zero radius- a true singularity, whatever that is.<br /><br />However, others have our universe approaching zero as a lower limit in past size without actually reaching it.<br />Still others have our universe starting out as a point with a radius no smaller than Planck length, and perhaps somewhat larger.<br />While all those variant size estimates might be loosely spoken of as infinitely small, techinically most of these sizes are finite, not infinite.<br /><br />Usually, zero is used to express infinitely small.<br /><br />Infinitely large, however, is a whole different matter.<br /><br />Can you define infinitely large?<br /><br />Let me give you one example based on the big bang model, eternal future expansion version:<br /><br />Our universe will expand forever. This number, infinity, ean be expressed in many different units.<br /><br />However, the infinite njmber of future seconds (A) is exactly 60 times larger than the infinite number of future minutes(B) such that A divided by B = 60.<br /><br />Most definitions of infinity cover over that basic mathematical fact.

 

[newtonian]

kmarinas86- Those small particles you list, like protons, neutrons, electrons, quarks, have definte mass and occupy an average volume and location based on various laws and mathematical probability.<br /><br />Your model has smaller particles than quarks.<br /><br />What are these called, and how small has this theory been worked out?<br /><br />Are there strings attached?

 

[newtonian]

kmarinas86- remind me -what is the James Webb telescope?

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">Can you specifiy what you mean by an infinitely small particle? <br /><br />Do you simply mean with a radius less than Planck length?</font><br /><br />yes. perhaps the size of a hypergalctic mass of a "smaller level" than "our level" is several orders of magnitude off (our) planck length.<br /><br />"vanishingly small" only after you consider that hypergalactic mass with their galaxies... would have stars, planets, people, etc. and their own "planck length" where in their "level of universe", "their plank length" is much smaller than ours, but not by an infinite amount. only when you go to increasingly "smaller levels of universe" do you get a vanishingly small planck length<br /><br />when talking about "higher levels of universe"... us, our planet, and our hyper galactic mass are much smaller than the "planck length of every higher level of universe"<br /><br />for every higher level universe there is, there is a longer and longer planck length<br /><br />btw, there are important question we must consider about the big bang<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Mission Goals<br />Determine the shape of the Universe. <br />Explain galaxy evolution <br />Understand the birth and formation of stars <br />Determine how planetary systems form and interact. <br />Determine how the Universe built up its present chemical/elemental composition. <br />Probe the nature and abundance of Dark Matter.</font>/safety_wrapper>

 

[kmarinas86]

http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/FastFacts.htm

 

[kmarinas86]

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10/<br /><br />Think of a string and attaching both ends by a piece of gum...<br /><br />the piece of gum is what we haven't discovered yet. starting from clockwise you have quarks, larger subatomic particles such as protons and electrons, atoms, molecules, star systems, galaxies, and "hyper-galactic systems" which includes all the galaxies around the hypergalactic masses and back to the piece of gum.<br /><br />in that piece of gum are other things that i can't theorize about right now like what is a cluster of hyper-galactic masses (?)... the clusters would form clusters of something else, and so on. eventually, you'll have the last "cluster of something" and then you're back to a quark again.<br /><br />i'm not sure if had to go this far explaining it.<br /><br />but eventually, in this theory, you go back to quarks again, but at a much larger level of universe. if you want, you can imagine reversing this cycle (counter-clockwise) if you want to think about the H.G. masses smaller than our planck length.<br /><br />if we are level 0, then this larger level is +1... but if we are level +1 instead, then the larger level is +2... if we are level -1, the previous level is level -2, and the next level is level 0<br /><br />simply put, there are an infinite number of levels...<br /><br />in this theory, there is no smallest or largest thing... there's always something bigger or large... but through every loop around this string, there is yet a larger thing (if you go clockwise on this string)... and there are smaller things (if you go counter-clockwise on this string).<br /><br />we can explore the "inner" space of atoms and molecules and the "outer" of stars and galaxies.<br /><br />the idea of this is that we can explore the smaller and the larger...<br /><br />this theory hasn't been worked out at all mathematically... as long a

 

[newtonian]

kmarinas86 - OK, you are not actually talking about infinity, are you?<br /><br />To ground you a little, consider 1 Kings 8:27 which refers to heavens in plural, and a heaven of the heavens and then adds that God cannot be contained even in the heaven of the heavens.<br /><br />Understand also that this is beyond scientific observation at this time, so scientific speculation becomes part of theoretical sciences like theoretical physics.<br /><br />And, yes, it will help to have better telescopes and better ways of observing things smaller than quarks- if such things truly exist.<br /><br />However, equalsmc2 does have a point concerning entropy.<br /><br />For me, entropy is only part of the sustaining process described in Isaiah 40:26 which shows stars' existence is connected with sources of energy (ultimately: God)..

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">Unless, someone comes and scientifically prove that this can be reversed.</font><br /><br />I suppose a possible very large gravitational force somewhere out in the distance after many, many years grapples on a few outedge planets and stars and eventually returning it into primodial soup again and ejecting it some how. at least that's what part of my theory is about.... (this thread)

 

[xmo1]

Universe = Infinity + Eternity + Existence<br />The universe as infinite has been the view of the Catholic Church for some time, although it attributes eternity to God.<br /><br />Existence for me may be a reoccuring big bang, big crunch, or it really doesn't matter because the extents of the universe, if there are any, are for the time being unknowable to us. We are limited by our devices, and by our knowledge, but that is a minor inconvenience considering the resources we already have to draw upon, and the associated responsibility to make the best use of them.<br /><br />Seems to me that if we can incorporate existence into our mathematical coordinate systems, then we will have solved the problems of space-time along the way. I suppose the nanoneurons will solve those problems for themselves in my lifetime. It wouldn't surprise me if some artificial intelligence actually solved the problems of space travel and time travel with a higher level mathematics that would also enable the manufacture of existent objects out of raw matter and energy, and be able to bring the physicality and consciousness of man to higher levels artificially. Just be careful of monsters from the id. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>DenniSys.com</p> </div>

 

[xmo1]

Sorry, but I didn't mean to slow down the thread yesterday.<br /><br />An acquaintence at work said his grandfather had a tractor. It was a great tractor. He almost flipped over when it torqued. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>DenniSys.com</p> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

An alternative view of the Universe according to the Cyclical Multiverse Theory.

 

[alkalin]

Kmarinas,<br /><br />Interesting thread. Others have suggested some kink in recycling universes as well, but I do not recall who.<br />But I wonder why you refer to some theory that is not very valid for big bang even, that there are only blue galaxies way out there. Big Bang predicted this, but it is not valid. Recent spectrographic studies in the region of twelve billion years ago has shown little agreement to this view. There are some blue galaxies, but there are also many old and large regular galaxies as well. In other words, it looks very similar to what our neighborhood looks like. Care to explain this?<br /><br />Your remarks:<br />“The universe is eternal. <br />It only seems like the universe is expanding.” <br /><br />My contention is that the universe is ‘growing’, not expanding as in big bang, so it does have a beginning. Growth is dependent on electric-magnetic effects, and not so much on gravity, as big bang theory holds to.<br /><br />“There is a no big bang, and there is no center in time or space. <br />There is no center of the universe. <br />The universe is without bounds. It is the only one. <br />The universe: a multiverse. “<br /><br />I agree that there is no big bang. But it does have bounds, therefore has a center, but we do not know where it’s center is. As to cyclical multiverse, it perhaps has as much possibility as any other theory. Big bang has failed as a predictor on at least twelve issues so far, and has had to build every time even more unbelievable kludges to fix it’s problems.<br /><br />Alkalin <br /><br />

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">Interesting thread. Others have suggested some kink in recycling universes as well, but I do not recall who. <br />But I wonder why you refer to some theory that is not very valid for big bang even, that there are only blue galaxies way out there. Big Bang predicted this, but it is not valid. Recent spectrographic studies in the region of twelve billion years ago has shown little agreement to this view. There are some blue galaxies, but there are also many old and large regular galaxies as well. In other words, it looks very similar to what our neighborhood looks like. Care to explain this?</font><br /><br />Yes. I too have seen that there are also gold galaxies at those distances. According to the cyclic multiverse theory, a galaxy, of relatively old age, such as the Milky Way, would one point at it's life time (even if conjoined with other galaxies) would eventually be broken up if it were headed in the direction towards what I will call here VLM's (or very large masses) where most of the blue galaxies are. In such a case, a galaxy might be broken up along the way due to tidal forces that occur over billions of years as it approaches a single VLM or a "pair" of VLMs. Eventually, such a galaxy would be torn apart and cooked up in the atmosphere which today's scientists call the Early Universe.<br /><br />Here is a good visual to show thing you talked about:<br />http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:6z7fEcOKUZUJ:mediatheek.thinkquest.nl/~ll125/en/fullhst_faint_blue.htm+"blue+galaxies"&hl=en&start=5<br /><br />In this picture, you can see what appears to be images of different stages of a process that happens when blue and gold galaxies collide.

 

[kmarinas86]

Artwork resembling the Cyclic Multiverse concept:<br /><br />Vacuum energy itself may be filled with energy that is less than the ground state. In this, we may find a pattern like the pattern we see in the heavens.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_state

 

[alkalin]

My assessment, whatever it is worth, is I would first avoid assuming all the galaxies are the same distance from us, therefore what appears to be collisions or breaking apart often are really one galaxy in front of another. Second, I have studied some of the distant views before that do not show some of the things in your pic, although virtually all galaxies are found in clusters of perhaps at least ten. Those clusters may appear to blend if they are far enough away, so it doesn’t mean there is some galaxy breaking apart. <br /><br />What you describe as ‘breaking up from tidal effects’ galaxies is not very evident in any far galaxy views, imo. But each sees what one wants. I will tend to see the picture of my version of universe reality, and you will see what you believe is the reality.<br /><br />Current theory is that galaxies that collide are eventually going to combine, and I tend to agree at this time.<br /><br />Another difficult one for your cyclical universe theory is, how does matter escape the enormous gravity of what you call VLM, once it enters?<br /><br />Astronomers also look for data that supports their theories, so it is no surprise that some of the images would support big bang. (as well as your theory) Whereas truly random data would not, imo.<br /> <br />Due to the problems big bang has had, and continues to, I would be very skeptical of any theory that resembles it. Big bang must rely heavily on the notion of curvature of space-time. But unlike big bang, if I understand you, your ideas have no need of inflation, and I feel that that is a step in the right direction.<br /><br />Interesting art work, btw. Is this yours?<br /><br />Alkalin<br /><br />

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">Another difficult one for your cyclical universe theory is, how does matter escape the enormous gravity of what you call VLM, once it enters?</font><br /><br />It would have to do with radiation escaping the VLMs and eventually evolving into Matter by undergoing a process similar to Big Bang Nucleosynthesis.<br /><br />A "VLM" might actually be composed of hundreds, thousands, or even millions of smaller black holes - this of course is unknown. The way how matter and energy behaves at such massive volumes is unknown to me.<br /><br />Since observation is limited at this time, even theories about radiation from black holes, such as Hawking Radiation, remain controversial.<br /><br />The major test in defining what these VLM's are is to find processes by which matter can be recycled in to energy (in the form of VLM's) and back into matter. Words cannot show this at all.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Astronomers also look for data that supports their theories, so it is no surprise that some of the images would support big bang. (as well as your theory) Whereas truly random data would not, imo.</font><br /><br />True.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Interesting art work, btw. Is this yours?</font><br /><br />I put it together, yes, but in this case, I did not make images themselves (i.e. the WMAP data, the plotted universe map, and the real pictures of galaxies), although I do have the skills to create similar graphics.<br /><br />A picture of a galaxy made 100% in photoshop:<br />http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/191748/<br /><br />Below is a different version of this picture...

 

[kmarinas86]

By the way, the artwork titled "Religion and the Brain" is not mine at all. It came from Newsweek's May 7, 2001 issue titled "God and the Brain". I recently rediscovered this issue while looking for pictures needed for an English Composition I project. That was exactly 42 months later on Sunday November 7, 2004, when I found this issue while sifting through a bag found on my closet. I presented this magazine to my 1 english and 2 history professors. You'll see why once you look at the image below.

 

[ramayana]

uhm... OK.. I think this needs a bump! I could prolly spend the next six months studying this thread alone....

 

[kmarinas86]

Keep in mind that some of the ideas in this thread I chose to no longer include in the hypothesis... too many to list... will retreat <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" />