Infinite Of Big Crunch / Big Bang Should Be A Matter Of Where, Not When

Aug 14, 2020
169
37
110
No infinite would be a one time entity or event, nor would it pulse as an existence now and then. It would be "timeless," always and forever in being, a matter then of where not when. Also a matter of how to think of a [constancy] of infinite in [static Universe] being, rather than any [inconstant] finite.

The Big Crunch / Big Bang so-called "beginning" is said to have been a Universe the size of a basketball -- or something like that -- exploding everywhere out from that ball into.... everywhere, still continuing in an accelerating expansion outwardly from everywhere to everywhere, whatever. Nothingness to... nothingness, whatever. I've argued against this for decades since nothing in or concerning the Universe, especially if an infinite Universe, is ever lost; therefore, also, is ever gained.

Since I argue against a one time entity and event, and also argue against a now and then regularly pulsing entity and event, then the infinite mass density of Big Crunch, and alternate face of Big Bang must be some [where] and probably always observed to be there.

It, that binary infinite duo, is too easy, too simple, to be recognized for what it is. The picture of a basketball sized beginning tied to an illustration of bell-shaped expansion, is backward from the reality of an infinite and the finite. Finite is local and relative. Infinite, herein addressing the infinite mass density of the Big Crunch, alternatively the Big Hole (the big holing or welling) of the Big Bang, is non-local and not-relative. The outland horizon.

Turn the picture of Big Crunch / Big Bang inside-out, to an outside-in picture, therefore the infinite of non-local to the finite of local, which is exactly where we are and exactly what we observe of ourselves and a collapsed distant horizon. Relativity collapses going away from local (finite) to non-local (infinite). From the infinity of local, finite, universes (u), such as our own, to the infinitely dense mass of exactly the same infinity closed, collapsed, to the infinite of non-local Big Crunch Universe (U). This way (to every finite-local universe locality (us)) comes the Big Bang. That way to the ever increasingly dense mass horizon goes gravity's infinity from every finite local center of gravity (to the infinity of the infinite of them all at once; all in one collapsed horizon).

Where is the center of an infinite / infinitesimal Universe? It is the anywhere and everywhere point (0-point) in and of that infinite. The anywhere and everywhere finite local. The finite relative. Us.
 
Last edited:

rod

Oct 22, 2019
1,859
652
2,560
FYI, in the BB model, there is no center to the expanding universe. Microsoft released a report for kids today showing the universe could be 12.6 billion years old, https://www.microsoftnewskids.com/en-us/kids/video/12-6-billion-years-old-that-s-how-old-the-universe-is-according-to-new-research/vi-BB1etg3P?ocid=msedgdhp

That means a distinct beginning and starting point for the expansion of the universe seen in astronomy today. It is based upon reports for H0 = 75.1 km/s/Mpc, published in 2020.

My observation. 75.1 km/s/Mpc = 2.43381 x 10^-18 cm/s/cm. We can see how sensitive the rate of expansion is to the Hubble time or age of the universe. I use these cosmology calculators, change H0 and use defaults for a flat universe.


Using 75.1 km/s/Mpc and calculator 1, the universe age “It is now 12.716 Gyr since the Big Bang” with defaults for flat universe.

Using 69 km/s/Mpc = 2.23612 x 10^-18 cm/s/cm, the universe age “It is now 13.840 Gyr since the Big Bang.”

Tiny changes to H0 in cm/s/cm can make for some large differences in the age of the universe in the BB model. I am confident the cosmology department has worked out the kinks here 😊 FYI. This ignored the cosmological constant issue in GR and expanding space. The universe edge in the expansion is only about 46.5 billion light-years distance from Earth today. See Livescience.com published a report using 46.5 billion LY radius in August 2019, https://www.livescience.com/how-big-universe.html

The rate of expansion at 46.5 billion light years distance using 69 km/s/Mpc works out to 9.83 x 10^10 cm/s, much faster than c velocity in Special Relativity :) From what I can tell, the expansion rate during inflation epoch ~ 3 x 10^30 cm/s/cm or some 10^20 faster than c or more. Enjoy :)
 
Last edited:
I am not a great fan of the space-time conglomerate, but, that aside, I keep seeing references to space and time being separate.
"Before the BB"
"Size of a peanut"
"Size of a basketball"
and so it goes on.
Is not this continual separation serving only to promote confusion?
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
1,859
652
2,560
I am not a great fan of the space-time conglomerate, but, that aside, I keep seeing references to space and time being separate.
"Before the BB"
"Size of a peanut"
"Size of a basketball"
and so it goes on.
Is not this continual separation serving only to promote confusion?
There needs to be a good timeline of space size and expansion rate changes in the BB model published. Starting with Planck time, Planck length, inflation epoch, CMBR formation, to the present. Converting H0 to cm/s/cm gets dicey in my view to show what happened here :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Aug 14, 2020
169
37
110
FYI, in the BB model, there is no center to the expanding universe. Microsoft released a report for kids today showing the universe could be 12.6 billion years old, https://www.microsoftnewskids.com/en-us/kids/video/12-6-billion-years-old-that-s-how-old-the-universe-is-according-to-new-research/vi-BB1etg3P?ocid=msedgdhp

That means a distinct beginning and starting point for the expansion of the universe seen in astronomy today. It is based upon reports for H0 = 75.1 km/s/Mpc, published in 2020.

My observation. 75.1 km/s/Mpc = 2.43381 x 10^-18 cm/s/cm. We can see how sensitive the rate of expansion is to the Hubble time or age of the universe. I use these cosmology calculators, change H0 and use defaults for a flat universe.


Using 75.1 km/s/Mpc and calculator 1, the universe age “It is now 12.716 Gyr since the Big Bang” with defaults for flat universe.

Using 69 km/s/Mpc = 2.23612 x 10^-18 cm/s/cm, the universe age “It is now 13.840 Gyr since the Big Bang.”

Tiny changes to H0 in cm/s/cm can make for some large differences in the age of the universe in the BB model. I am confident the cosmology department has worked out the kinks here 😊 FYI. This ignored the cosmological constant issue in GR and expanding space. The universe edge in the expansion is only about 46.5 billion light-years distance from Earth today. See Livescience.com published a report using 46.5 billion LY radius in August 2019, https://www.livescience.com/how-big-universe.html

The rate of expansion at 46.5 billion light years distance using 69 km/s/Mpc for H0 works out to 9.83 x 10^10 cm/s/cm, much faster than c velocity in Special Relativity :) From what I can tell, the expansion rate during inflation epoch ~ 3 x 10^30 cm/s/cm or some 10^20 faster than c or more. Enjoy :)
What went before and what is outside our local universe? Answer! Don't try to go around it, going back to the once upon a time infinitely dense mass basketball exploding into.... nothingness (into Nowhereland)! I have an answer (it being an infinite [horizon] constant). I gave my answer (a constancy. No before, no outside, (no questions of time "before" and space "outside") needed).

I'm not trying to be offensive. I'm just always running into the considered pat answers that will not address "nothingness" before and outside, or will address only pulsing which is really no answer at all. Again, I am not trying to be offensive with this response.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Aug 14, 2020
169
37
110
There needs to be a good timeline of space size and expansion rate changes in the BB model published. Starting with Planck time, Planck length, inflation epoch, CMBR formation, to the present. Converting H0 to cm/s/cm gets dicey in my view to show what happened here :)
Plank horizon down and in, fronting the infinitesimal, is one and the same with the collapsed horizon up and out, fronting the infinite. Separating them out from relative, local, finite, there is no difference to infinite and infinitesimal. Both are [singularly] 'infinite'. Like a doughnut torus where inside and outside is the same side going away. Just not relative. Just not local.
 
Aug 14, 2020
169
37
110
An interesting article in Quanta Magazine is 'Quantum Mischief Rewrites the Laws of Cause and Effect'. A surprise subheading, to me, is 'Correlation, Not Causation', the subtitle itself, since I am very much dealing here in "correlation" (aka "superposition") on the largest scale, the Universe (U). The non-relative non-local infinite [correlation] of Big Crunch / Big Bang Universe (U) as [correlation] of the infinity of local relative finite universes (u). At the level of "infinite" and "'infinity' of finites" there being no such physic as "cause and effect." The infinity of finite universes, in all their 'infinity', simply merge with and as the 'infinite' mass density of the Big Crunch in outland collapsed horizon. From constant of outland collapsed horizon of the infinite to any and every finite relative local point (0-point) in every finite relative local point universe, the space-time and conditional physics (including "causes and effects") of the Big Bang apply. But, again, at the [hyper] level it is all correlation, not causation.

Quantum Mechanics has shown it is not impossible for one thing to have three or more faces at once; for one thing to [be] three or more things, all at once. Correlative existence.
 
Last edited:

rod

Oct 22, 2019
1,859
652
2,560
Interesting thread. I found 33x references to infinite or flavor of the word here. I also note this in the history of astronomy. 'Six stages in the history of the astronomical unit', https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001JAHH....4...15H/abstract, June 2001.

A very good table showing efforts to measure the astronomical unit starting with Aristarchus near 280 BC. Table 1 on page 16 of the report (attached, page 2 of the PDF). My view. The history of astronomy determining the distance between the Earth and Sun is more secure and confirmed than discussions about infinite or infinity universe or universes using the science of astronomy.
 
Aug 14, 2020
169
37
110
Interesting thread. I found 33x references to infinite or flavor of the word here. I also note this in the history of astronomy. 'Six stages in the history of the astronomical unit', https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001JAHH....4...15H/abstract, June 2001.

A very good table showing efforts to measure the astronomical unit starting with Aristarchus near 280 BC. Table 1 on page 16 of the report (attached, page 2 of the PDF). My view. The history of astronomy determining the distance between the Earth and Sun is more secure and confirmed than discussions about infinite or infinity universe or universes using the science of astronomy.
Though I've read [inside the box], I don't like living there. I respect that it (the confines inside the box) is, and has long been, your home you apparently enjoy very much, but it is not mine. Without totally dismissing the realized conditions and confines of the box, my enjoyment, as an imagined "traveler" of the Universe (U) and its universes (u), or the Multiverse (whatever), is to bust out and soar outside and beyond the box as any real Universe traveler might (if any "real Universe traveler" might really exist (as in my mind's eye I see the traveler, the Universe, and universes, with continuing slight modifications (tweaking), to exist)).
 
Last edited:

rod

Oct 22, 2019
1,859
652
2,560
Though I've read [inside the box], I don't like living there. I respect that it (the confines inside the box) is, and has long been, your home you apparently enjoy very much, but it is not mine. Without totally dismissing the realized conditions and confines of the box, my enjoyment, as an imagined "traveler" of the Universe (U) and its universes (u), or the Multiverse (whatever), is to bust out and soar outside and beyond the box as any real universe traveler might (if any "real universe traveler" might really exist (as I see in my mind's eye the Universe, and universes, with continuing slight modifications, to exist)).

"your home you apparently enjoy very much, but it is not mine." Agreed, I prefer the scientific method where testing rules and confirms theories and ideas and claims about the universe or universes. The astronomical unit is a well tested measurement compared to many claims presented today about other universes - my view.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Aug 14, 2020
169
37
110
I agree with Rod. I cannot accept that wild unfettered imagination has anything to do with stark reality.

Cat :)
What is outside and beyond the "observed universe"? You just [emphatically] said (in effect), nothing at all! If it hasn't already been observed, it -- according to you -- doesn't exist and will never exist! You cannot accept that 'infinite' (including 'infinitesimal') exists, much less where and what it might be (as I say, it cannot be local, can never be local, therefore can never be a matter of [local] relativity).

Removed by Moderator

Rod actually sees things my way. That is, he sees them to be for me though not for him. He tells me, in effect, he is learnedly methodical, an educated plugger, and I long worked with such. I very much respect such. They've long held and still do, and will always, "hold the fort," as the saying goes, while such as me sortee (sic). Regardless of his being a plugger, I've learned a lot from long [friendly] associations with his like, Even some that were not quite so "friendly." I can learn, and here and there have learned, from him. In my book, Rod is no mediocrity.

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds..." -- Albert Einstein -- And: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." Again Einstein: "It takes three dimensions to describe a point."
"If I had eight hours to cut down a tree, I'd spend seven sharpening my ax." -- Abraham Lincoln.
"He is the best sailor who can steer within fewest points of the wind, and exact a motive power out of the greatest obstacles." "The universe is wider than our views of it" Both -- Henry David Thoreau.
"We must make sure that emerging intelligent systems do not self-destruct." -- Harlan Smith, University of Texas at Austin, 1975.
And, last but not at all least: "From a drop of water a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other..."-- Arthur Canon Doyle, Sherlock Holmes: A Study In Scarlett.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aug 14, 2020
169
37
110
Regarding a [local] universe (u) as I describe it, everywhere the collapsed horizon is potentially observable distant from every point (0-point) within (including the Planck horizon distantly down inside (the same horizon)), it, that horizon, will always be observed locally to be the infinite constant of "Big Beginning." Since it is everywhere at a constant distance up and out, and down and in too (an equivalent [constant] distance), from us, which is to say out and/or in from every local relative point of an infinity of local universes / points, where, and when, would the end place/event be? Steven Hawking amusingly answered that question by telling us when the time came travel in any direction outwardly and away toward that distant collapsed horizon fronting the infinite from the particular local here (wherever here is by [then]), would do the job. Indirectly, sort of, he pronounced every here and now 0-point of universe (u) to be the constant of end point. But, as he indicated in saying go out and away (to go forth (Latin 'exodus' ("Exodus"))), not all are that kind of end place/end event at the same time. With that distant constant of horizon in every direction up and out being the constant of "Big Beginning" with all "fountain of youth" flow of energetic life from it being this way [in] to every point of an infinity of points and universes (u), the distribution of end point event, the dead end point event, will always be a spread of here and there, now and then, running from forever to forever.

We are told the flow of expansionist universe is out to infinite. As Hawking said about the panic of the Universe reaching zero point in some kind of a simulation, there isn't any reason to panic, we are there already (always have been there, will always be there). The flow from the collapsed horizon of the infinite Universe (U) (the Big Beginning fountain of youth), as Hawking hinted concerning, is always to us, always toward us (always toward local 0-point center of the infinite). He was one of the first to tell us of a single particle having six faces; alternatively being six separate and distinct particles, while still being the single particle. That description fits the supreme entity of Universe (U), being Big Crunch / Big Bang (non-local, non-relative) 'Big Beginning' Universe, while at once being the [infinity of] local relative -- finite -- universes / 0-points ('correlation, not causation'). You can't observe the infinite / infinitesimal. You can't observe infinity. You can only observe a finite [potentiality] of infinity. You can only perceive the infinite.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS