Scientist calculates the 'sad, lonely' end of the universe

[rod]

Helio, something I point out here about your post #50. You commented about inflation, "Are you suggesting this has any real size effect on the universe? That "epoch" lasted perhaps only a trillionth of a second, perhaps much less."

Helio, the inflation epoch, features eternal inflation, not just a quick burst, 'Inflationary paradigm after Planck 2013', https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PhLB..733..112G/abstract, 'Homogeneous transitions during inflation: A description in quantum cosmology', https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PhRvD.101f3501B/abstract, also 'Energy conditions allow eternal inflation', https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv200801878K/abstract

Helio, if inflation shutdown, then what did 3D space expand into in BB cosmology after inflation epoch? The answer is 3D space thus the BB event *creates 3D space everywhere*, not just a tiny small area before, during inflation, and after inflation. Otherwise you have 3D space created in BB cosmology as the universe expands and the as universe continues to expand, it must create more 3D space to continue expanding. This is not what is taught in BB cosmology. The BB event creates 3D space everywhere and our tiny speck emerges, that later evolves into the universe seen in astronomy today.

Indeed, I do find it humorous Helio. When I compare the science used in the debates between the geocentric astronomy teachers like Claudius Ptolemy and Tycho Brahe, and compare with the heliocentric teachers like Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, it is amusing to me. In BB cosmology we have a beginning with physical conditions existing in a tiny, tiny area, that cannot be observed today (other than interpretation of the CMBR that came much later), and now long after the BB event, a universe so large that much of the universe we cannot presently see with our telescopes.

When Galileo observed the small lights moving around Jupiter using his telescope, I can still do that today using my telescopes so I am 100% confident, Galileo was correct

 

[Atlan0001]

Atlan0101, you asked in post #47, "Rod, I'd like to know exactly where you got that 46.5 billion year figure. What scientists put that out because there is something hugely wrong here either with that figure or with the scientists' picture of the Universe itself?"

The figure of 46.5 billion light-years from Earth is in the livescience.com report I cited in post #45. However, the cosmology calculators will show this too, https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/help/cosmology_calc.html

I generally use on Calculator I. Using the defaults, flat universe, and z=1100 for the CMBR redshift, the comoving radial distance is 45.513 Gly distance while the Hubble time for the BB event is 13.72 billion years ago or 13.8 billion years ago, depending upon inputs for some of the other parameters in the calculator. Detailed equations I find in sources like Allen's Astrophysical Quantities, Chapter 26 on cosmology discussing the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric and distance measures. In the BB model, the universe is expanding but objects with different z numbers or redshifts as observed from Earth, have light-travel-time to Earth or look back time (this is reported in the news), and then where the object should really exist at, the comoving radial distance . 3D space starts to expand faster than c in the BB model, thus you can get an outer limit area of 46.5 billion LY distance from Earth today. The inflation epoch has 3D space expanding > 1E+20 c during the *repulsive gravity* phase

However, I find two items in cosmology today that are amusing to me. In the BB model, the origin of the universe starts at a very tiny space, enormous density, temperature, and tiny unit of time measure that no one can observe today, and the outer edge of the expanding universe, is far far away that we cannot observe today either That includes many objects with large redshifts like some galaxies where z is 10 or 11, light-time distance or look back time to Earth. However, galaxies with z = 10 or 11, are much farther away on the comoving radial distance, and we cannot see them at those distances from Earth because of light-time

Then there is nothing I need get excitable about. Thank you for the references which I almost wish I hadn't ask for. I don't really need all the deep detail. I can get it with your general outlines, good general outlines to boot, as you gave to me before.

What I described will change your picture regardless. From a little universe bubble (observable) within a big universe bubble (unobservable) you will have to reverse the picture to a big universe bubble filling most of the [somewhat] bigger universe bubble. From 0-point center (so to speak) out to the horizon of the lesser will be 32.5b to 35b years; and from there to here and now where we are on YOUR, and THEIR, version of the universe, will be 11.4b to 13.8b years. The outer or greater is somewhat observable in local detail (to nearing the horizon of the lesser) while the lesser, to the limit of the lesser's horizon out from 0-point center (again so to speak), isn't observable at all. YOU have a mighty, mighty, big inner bulge in YOUR bulging universe. Do you understand ALL of what I mean when I say "mighty, mighty, big inner bulge"?!?!?

And you did not lose me earlier when you talked the Planck horizon. It is very much a part of my own universe puzzle (as you've apparently seen), though I am looser with the details and detailing (very much by choice) than you are in your realization of the part it plays. I'm not sure about yours, but in mine it, of course, is [one with] my 'Big Horizon'. which is why it can float with it horizon to horizon to horizon....never being more than, or less than, centered between horizons. It will maintain distance in all traveling, it being a base piece within my real time space traveler and within his onboard real time [universal] clock. But that is elsewhere and maybe for another time.

 

[Helio]

Helio, the inflation epoch, features eternal inflation, not just a quick burst, 'Inflationary paradigm after Planck 2013', https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PhLB..733..112G/abstract, 'Homogeneous transitions during inflation: A description in quantum cosmology', https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PhRvD.101f3501B/abstract, also 'Energy conditions allow eternal inflation', https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv200801878K/abstract

Ug. Thanks, I guess. Guth's original model produced enormous acceleration (i.e. inflation), which addressed the Horizon problem and Flatness problem with the BBT. But there are models, even perhaps from him, that address quantum bubble issues that would suggest ways a multiverse model would be, at least mathematically, somewhat possible. Successful attempts that falsify any of these models mathematically eliminates the need for objective testing.

I didn't notice if DE is suggested to fit any of those eternal models, so I'm unsure what I'm reading.

Helio, if inflation shutdown, then what did 3D space expand into in BB cosmology after inflation epoch? The answer is 3D space thus the BB event *creates 3D space everywhere*, not just a tiny small area before, during inflation, and after inflation. Otherwise you have 3D space created in BB cosmology as the universe expands and the as universe continues to expand, it must create more 3D space to continue expanding. This is not what is taught in BB cosmology. The BB event creates 3D space everywhere and our tiny speck emerges, that later evolves into the universe seen in astronomy today.

This is beyond me, but anything that addresses a something outside our universe is metaphysics, not mainstream science. The BBT, as I understand, starts with a tiny universe that continues to expand, so regions keep moving away from each other due to space itself expanding. We can't really say what is outside the observable universe where the unobservable may or may not be. It's plausible that a closed universe (flat) makes any sort of a boundary superfluous.

Indeed, I do find it humorous Helio. When I compare the science used in the debates between the geocentric astronomy teachers like Claudius Ptolemy and Tycho Brahe, and compare with the heliocentric teachers like Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, it is amusing to me. In BB cosmology we have a beginning with physical conditions existing in a tiny, tiny area, that cannot be observed today (other than interpretation of the CMBR that came much later), and now long after the BB event, a universe so large that much of the universe we cannot presently see with our telescopes.

Yes, the universe is enormously huge and was enormously tiny.

When Galileo observed the small lights moving around Jupiter using his telescope, I can still do that today using my telescopes so I am 100% confident, Galileo was correct

He first thought they were stars but, interestingly, he noticed that they were aligned with the ecliptic, which may have been his first clue. Observations are the foundation of science. The Jesuits were surprisingly quick to reject Ptolemy's model once they too saw what Galileo claimed he saw -- phases of Venus.

Oddly, he was warned to make sure he could provide "necessary demonstrations" if he chose to argue for the Copernican model. But he failed to heed that advice, though he did, erroneously, think tides were such.

 

[David-J-Franks]

Helio, if inflation shutdown, then what did 3D space expand into in BB cosmology after inflation epoch? The answer is 3D space thus the BB event *creates 3D space everywhere*, not just a tiny small area before, during inflation, and after inflation. Otherwise you have 3D space created in BB cosmology as the universe expands and the as universe continues to expand, it must create more 3D space to continue expanding. This is not what is taught in BB cosmology. The BB event creates 3D space everywhere and our tiny speck emerges, that later evolves into the universe seen in astronomy today.

Everything that exists, exists in a space, including the contents of the Big bang IMO. The big bang may have created its own space (space itself being a 'something' eg quantum foam etc), but why can't this created space also exist in a space at the same time?

 

[rod]

David-J-Franks, in your post #54, interesting idea about space and the BB event In the BB model, the universe we see today in astronomy began in an area the Planck length in size, 1.616E-33 cm and Planck density, 5.16E+93 g cm^-3 That is some density, ~ 2.58E+60 solar masses packed into this tiny area that is said to have created everything we see today Ref - Allen's Astrophysical Quantities, Fourth edition, 2000, page 650, 26.7 Epochs of Interest.

Concerning observations using my two telescopes (90-mm refractor and 10-inch Newtonian), I know I cannot see that beginning

 

[David-J-Franks]

David-J-Franks, in your post #54, interesting idea about space and the BB event In the BB model, the universe we see today in astronomy began in an area the Planck length in size, 1.616E-33 cm and Planck density, 5.16E+93 g cm^-3 That is some density, ~ 2.58E+60 solar masses packed into this tiny area that is said to have created everything we see today Ref - Allen's Astrophysical Quantities, Fourth edition, 2000, page 650, 26.7 Epochs of Interest.

Concerning observations using my two telescopes (90-mm refractor and 10-inch Newtonian), I know I cannot see that beginning

Are these measurements you've given for the observable universe contents of the big bang or the whole universe contents of the big bang?

 

[rod]

David-J-Franks, interesting question in your post #56. My answer, from what I can gather, the Planck values are for the initial start of the universe and the only *observable contents* of the BB event is the CMBR, said to form some 380,000 years after the BB event. So the universe did not exist in that tiny, tiny, super-dense state at the Planck levels when the CMBR formed. The time line starting with the BB event to the formation of the CMBR, there is much *cosmic evolution* that takes place (including initial quantum foam, quantum repulsive gravity operating in inflation), apparently not directly observable today. However, BB cosmology and inflation advocates, claim they can predict tiny variations in the CMBR that should be observed and determine what the initial and early universe looked like, tests showing their view of the origin of the universe is solid science . BB and inflation cosmology looks for fingerprints in the CMBR to say what the universe looked like at the *beginning* Kip Thorne in his book shows a quantum foam exists in theory at the Planck-Wheeler size to the universe, 1.62E-33 cm or even smaller. Black Holes & Time Warps Einstein Outrageous Legacy, 1994, p. 555.

Much of this discussion we are now having moves away from the white dwarf to black dwarf stellar evolution reported in the article, 'Scientist calculates the 'sad, lonely' end of the universe'.

White dwarfs evolve towards heat death as the universe continues to expand and the report is not saying the white dwarfs observed today in astronomy will evolve back into a quantum foam universe, i.e. the Planck-Wheeler length size, only to evolve again in another BB event with a new universe appearing. This report on white dwarf stellar evolution into black dwarfs shows the 2nd Law will win in the end, not a new universe appearing.

 

[David-J-Franks]

So the universe did not exist in that tiny, tiny, super-dense state at the Planck levels when the CMBR formed.

What do you mean "the universe did not exist?

 

[rod]

David-J-Franks, you asked in Post #58 what I meant about the universe did not exist. I stated clearly "So the universe did not exist in that tiny, tiny, super-dense state at the Planck levels when the CMBR formed."

The Plank level values define the universe initial staring point including the quantum foam state, already provided by me in post #56 and 57. The Planck-Wheeler quantum universe did not exist when the CMBR formed, a very different energy state and density existed and the universe was much larger in size.

David-J-Franks, do you use a different cosmology metric than what Kip Thorne and Allen's Astrophysical Quantities define for the starting point of the universe we see today?

 

[Atlan0001]

The Universe has already been declared, and illustrated, "flat." One need go no further than Chaos Theory to find "smooth" existing with and alternating with "grainy". Existing (and/). Alternating (/or).

Disordering, breakdown, entropy, doesn't stop progression at any certain point, except one final point ... smooth ... flat. And actually doesn't even stop there. Colder than cold equals hot. And, hotter than hot equals cold. They are a wrap, smooth, flat.

And both flat universe and smooth universe (herein synonymous) have been officially declared in various publications to exist right now. Well, officially [theorized] to exist right now. Anything that can exist (including whatever the ultimate is), exists, right now. The end of the Universe is here and now. And if I remember right, Stephen Hawking, among maybe some others, beat me to that big announcement.

There are two absolutes '0' and/or '1'. Nothing and/or Everything. Nowhere and/or Everywhere.... Absolutes exist. Binary 'naked singularity', neither infinite nor finite, exists.
The Universe Began / Begins from Nothing (0) (and/or Everything (1)). The Universe Began / Begins Nowhere (0) (and/or Everywhere (1)). The Universe Ended / Ends in Nothingness (0) (and/or in Everythingness (1)). The Universe Ended / Ends Everywhere (1) (and/or Nowhere (0)).

Infinity exists (infinite. Infinitesimal. Infinity of finites). Finite too, of course, exists.

Finite is 'quantity' / 'quantification'. Finite does not wrap.
Infinity is 'quality' / 'qualification'. Infinity wraps. Even an 'infinite number' is one that wraps into itself. Infinity of finites wrap into itself. Infinity of finite universes is an infinite number, a qualification (such as infinity of infinites / infinity of infinitesimals), that wrap into itself.

"Infinite mass", "infinite density," "infinitesimal mass", "infinitesimal density". There is no real difference since infinite and infinitesimal wrap as quality, as qualification. So there is no difference whatsoever between Big Crunch (infinite / infinitesimal) and Big Hole / Space / Vacuum (infinite / infinitesimal). They are in fact a binary 'naked singularity' (see above). Big Crunch has gravity's tug to the inside (everywhere and nowhere), but so does Big Hole have gravity's tug, only to the outside (everywhere and nowhere). The Universe is 'smooth'. The infinity of its horizons ('grainy' universes) bank accordion-like to the infinity of its Horizon (Universe) (close up to the infinite of its Horizon (infinite / infinitesimal of Universe). The Universe is 'flat'. The Universe is hotter than hot / The Universe is colder than cold. A wrap.

Universe is, at the same time, not infinite / finite. Do I contradict myself? Binary '0' and/or '1' are not / is not infinite or finite. The Universe Began / Begins || Ended / Ends. It is up and out into an infinity of pointy (horizon) ended cones, and down and in into an infinity of pointy (horizon) ended cones. Spin them end for end, you get wormholes; you're through wormholes. It is bigger than big, and smaller than small. And hotter than hot, and colder than cold. As infinitesimal wraps into infinite, and infinite wraps into infinitesimal, in fact no difference. Infinitely flexible, unlike finite.

And time, too, has more than one dimension. I've described some. One dimension of time: You want to travel back in time, try the infinity of universes (with an extreme of luck you'll find yourself there somewhere in Earth's history among an infinity of somewheres and histories (and in finding Earths ,if you do, an infinity of Earth histories; same and different (so lots of luck))). Otherwise, try anti-matter (bang).

 

[Helio]

I'm reasonably confident that DM and DE are included in the physics from day nano-nano -nanosecond one.

 

[David-J-Franks]

David-J-Franks, interesting question in your post #56. My answer, from what I can gather, the Planck values are for the initial start of the universe and the only *observable contents* of the BB event is the CMBR, said to form some 380,000 years after the BB event. So the universe did not exist in that tiny, tiny, super-dense state at the Planck levels when the CMBR formed. The time line starting with the BB event to the formation of the CMBR, there is much *cosmic evolution* that takes place (including initial quantum foam, quantum repulsive gravity operating in inflation), apparently not directly observable today. However, BB cosmology and inflation advocates, claim they can predict tiny variations in the CMBR that should be observed and determine what the initial and early universe looked like, tests showing their view of the origin of the universe is solid science . BB and inflation cosmology looks for fingerprints in the CMBR to say what the universe looked like at the *beginning* Kip Thorne in his book shows a quantum foam exists in theory at the Planck-Wheeler size to the universe, 1.62E-33 cm or even smaller. Black Holes & Time Warps Einstein Outrageous Legacy, 1994, p. 555.

Much of this discussion we are now having moves away from the white dwarf to black dwarf stellar evolution reported in the article, 'Scientist calculates the 'sad, lonely' end of the universe'.

White dwarfs evolve towards heat death as the universe continues to expand and the report is not saying the white dwarfs observed today in astronomy will evolve back into a quantum foam universe, i.e. the Planck-Wheeler length size, only to evolve again in another BB event with a new universe appearing. This report on white dwarf stellar evolution into black dwarfs shows the 2nd Law will win in the end, not a new universe appearing.

the CMBR, said to form some 380,000 years after the BB event.

and

in that tiny, tiny, super-dense state at the Planck levels when the CMBR formed.

Something looks inconsistent here rod?

 

[rod]

David-J-Franks, in reference to your question in #62 post, I stated very clearly in post #57, "So the universe did not exist in that tiny, tiny, super-dense state at the Planck levels when the CMBR formed." To clarify, when the CMBR forms in BB cosmology 380,000 years after the BB event, the universe is much large and less dense than the starting values used in Planck-Wheeler length, quantum foam, and Planck density in the sources I cited, i.e. Kip Throne and Allen's Astrophysical Quantities.

So I ask my question again, what starting values for the size and density of our universe to you use and what source(s) proclaim this? I pointed out the Planck-Wheeler length size and Planck density. If you have something in mind very different than this starting point for the universe observed in astronomy today, place declare this clearly, thank you---Rod

 

[David-J-Franks]

David-J-Franks, in reference to your question in #62 post, I stated very clearly in post #57, "So the universe did not exist in that tiny, tiny, super-dense state at the Planck levels when the CMBR formed." To clarify, when the CMBR forms in BB cosmology 380,000 years after the BB event, the universe is much large and less dense than the starting values used in Planck-Wheeler length, quantum foam, and Planck density in the sources I cited, i.e. Kip Throne and Allen's Astrophysical Quantities.

So I ask my question again, what starting values for the size and density of our universe to you use and what source(s) proclaim this? I pointed out the Planck-Wheeler length size and Planck density. If you have something in mind very different than this starting point for the universe observed in astronomy today, place declare this clearly, thank you---Rod

"So the universe did not exist in that tiny, tiny, super-dense state at the Planck levels when the CMBR formed."I misread the sentece

at the Planck levels when the CMBR formed

I was going to say
The CMBR didn't form at the Planck levels. but yes I get what you mean now. Sorry for confusion

 

[David-J-Franks]

Much of this discussion we are now having moves away from the white dwarf to black dwarf stellar evolution reported in the article, 'Scientist calculates the 'sad, lonely' end of the universe'.

White dwarfs evolve towards heat death as the universe continues to expand and the report is not saying the white dwarfs observed today in astronomy will evolve back into a quantum foam universe, i.e. the Planck-Wheeler length size, only to evolve again in another BB event with a new universe appearing. This report on white dwarf stellar evolution into black dwarfs shows the 2nd Law will win in the end, not a new universe appearing.

OK back on track

This report on white dwarf stellar evolution into black dwarfs shows the 2nd Law will win in the end, not a new universe appearing.

In post 28 I gave what I thought were 2 good reasons why the 2nd law won't win. I've copied and pasted them below. I would value your opinion as to whether any of them is reasonable doubt for the heat death;

"It is a huge assumption that the contents of the big bang are 'everything that is' ie the universe. There's absolutely no evidence to support this, I find it completely unscientific.

So until proven otherwise I think it's equally good (no, better) to assume the universe is infinite and contains infinite 'stuff'. Meaning the contents of the Big bang is not 'everything that is' ie the universe. With this in mind, the contents of the big bang are expanding into the stuff of rest of 'The Infinite', as I like to call it. When it hits this 'stuff', the 2nd law will not be able to expand the contents of our big bang anymore. So no heat death!"

and;

""For something to have a beginning, it must be a part of a greater whole or from something pre-existing, otherwise, it's just another something from nothing theory." Again with this proposition, the contents of our big bang are expanding into the greater whole, and so can't expand forever - no heat death."

 

[Atlan0001]

OK back on trackIn post 28 I gave what I thought were 2 good reasons why the 2nd law won't win. I've copied and pasted them below. I would value your opinion as to whether any of them is reasonable doubt for the heat death;

"It is a huge assumption that the contents of the big bang are 'everything that is' ie the universe. There's absolutely no evidence to support this, I find it completely unscientific.

So until proven otherwise I think it's equally good (no, better) to assume the universe is infinite and contains infinite 'stuff'. Meaning the contents of the Big bang is not 'everything that is' ie the universe. With this in mind, the contents of the big bang are expanding into the stuff of rest of 'The Infinite', as I like to call it. When it hits this 'stuff', the 2nd law will not be able to expand the contents of our big bang anymore. So no heat death!"

and;

""For something to have a beginning, it must be a part of a greater whole or from something pre-existing, otherwise, it's just another something from nothing theory." Again with this proposition, the contents of our big bang are expanding into the greater whole, and so can't expand forever - no heat death."

You bring to mind something interesting about physics and mathematics. Run away infinities of numbers / physics' values, which then they will, usually inevitably, find another infinity to cancel it with. Why this time, here, is there a deliberate choice not to do that? On one end a finite beginning to the problem from nothingness. On the other end a run away expansion to infinity (infinitizing) in that "expand forever". A physic, and mathematically a number, so to speak, infinitizing and being accepted as such where / when it should never be allowed, much less rigidly accepted. A finite to infinite transformation? Not only allowed but pushed (forced)? By a pro? Heaven forbid!

This is something only amateurs amateurously do usually. I'm joking around here but you [are] very much onto something. Quite a disordering expanding in the picturing of the territory, never mind the territory being pictured. This is what happens when the premise is wrong. The structure built over it is built over quicksand.

 

[David-J-Franks]

You bring to mind something interesting about physics and mathematics. Run away infinities of numbers / physics' values, which then they will, usually inevitably, find another infinity to cancel it with. Why this time, here, is there a deliberate choice not to do that? On one end a finite beginning to the problem from nothingness. On the other end a run away expansion to infinity (infinitizing) in that "expand forever". A physic, and mathematically a number, so to speak, infinitizing and being accepted as such where / when it should never be allowed, much less rigidly accepted. A finite to infinite transformation? Not only allowed but pushed (forced)? By a pro? Heaven forbid!

This is something only amateurs amateurously do usually. I'm joking around here but you [are] very much onto something. Quite a disordering expanding in the picturing of the territory, never mind the territory being pictured. This is what happens when the premise is wrong. The structure built over it is built over quicksand.

Thanks for quoting my post. I've read all your other posts here and acknowledge the effort you've put in them, it all looks very clever. However, I must confess I can't understand much of what your saying, it's beyond me. I think the closest I got was with your analogy with trees and forests.

It's nice to see someone who acknowledges an infinite space with infinite universes, not something common in forums. Everyone knows what is meant by 'universes', but do you realise it's an incorrect use of the word, as 'universe' already means everything that exists and hasn't got a plural.

 

[Atlan0001]

I hope I'm not the last man standing here because there is more to be had from the cauldron of this article and what has been said and debated:

"And time, too, has more than one dimension. I've described some. One dimension of time: You want to travel back in time, try the infinity of universes.... Otherwise, try anti-matter (bang)."

Because of what I've been posting, particularly the above, and because of give and take between 'Rod' and 'David-J-Franks' I've been looking at, studying, and contemplating hard a short article on 'Superunification and the Planck Era' from 'Cosmology' in the encyclopedia 'Britannica'. I found that short article extremely interesting and revealing, and clarifying, to me.

"Space-time" and "mass-energy". "Space-time" and "mass-energy"! SPACE-TIME and MASS-ENERGY?

In picturing infinite, I separated space from time and mass from energy and looked at mass and space as an infinite binary (Big Crunch / Big Hole). I've never viewed or talked of energy as being infinite. I've also only alluded to time as being 'eternal' only in context of the whole of a non-locality of 'Universe' and having nothing to do with time interior to more local (more relative) universes.

I know (I KNOW!) where, what, how, and when [infinite...] is in my realization. I've taken [finite] and [many finite universes] for granted as just being there. I've not taken 'time' for granted, nor have I taken 'energy' for granted, but I have never thought about putting the two together as a binary pair (finite, but the Big Bang energy finite being on a scale of Chaos Theory's macro-macro-verse, the twin, the other or dual existence, of quantum mechanics' micro-verse) just as I've put "space" and "mass" together as a binary pair (smooth, flat, infinite, stuck in between layers of grainy finite; just as grainy finite is stuck in between layers of smooth, flat, infinite, such as the layer of infinite existing down beneath, beyond, the Planck horizon inside every particle that makes us up. This Chaos Theory-like alternate layering Einstein layer upon Hawking layer, so to speak, can monotonously run vertically to infinity, up and out, down and in, but ultimately reduces to [stereotypical] two). I just forgot it when it comes to Big Bang energies (still finite! Not infinite!). In my realization (only concerning the biggest and smallest pictures of all) I divorced space from time as the one being an infinite while the other being a finite. I divorced mass from energy for exactly the same reason. I can picture re-marriages, re-mergers, of infinite space to infinite mass and finite time to finite energy. I can picture the four piece two set polygamous whole as existing. I can even picture it as, how, it should work...

Now, as begun above, I have to reconsider the non-locality of a binary [Big (real time) (universal) Clock / Big Bang Energy].... Why? The very existence of 'FINITE'! The very existence of "infinity of FINITE horizons (finite universes)." The very reason why this article, and Rod, cannot be right about that "expanding forever" (which I agree with you, David, is nonsense, for the same reason). The Big Bang energy, as I see it is a spontaneous vacuum energy regarding each finite [local] universe. Where the Big Crunch / Big Hole is nowhere local, the Big Bang energy is everywhere local, a 0-point real space, real time existence rather than relative time past (-) / future (+). You might say it wells up from quantum mechanics' micro-verse everywhere local throughout an infinity of finite universes (u). Every finite universe / wave / particle. Finite.

The real time (universal) clock is 0-point orientated. That now is forever. That now is eternal, just as Hawking meant it to be (hung on the center pillar of his illustrative Grand Central Station of the Universe). It is every thing's and every one's arrival point at any destination at any time including every real time, real space 0-point enroute. And nowhere is it observable, not even where you stand, though where you stand is 0-point. You observe relative space-time past (-) / future (+) (future (+) being a past (-) in ascension to 0-point (present)) and no other space or time.

The so called 'arrow of time' points past > present > future > (forever). The real time clock deals in time quite differently, as negatives and positives, in relative time pasts (-) to real time's constant of horizon (0), via relative time's futures (+) which are restricted by that same constant of horizon; (-) (+) ever coming together in mutual cancellation, one might say mutual annihilation, to the real time constant of (0-point present). Nothing in the Universe (U) ever travels [through] it. Everything in the Universe (U) always travels with it, to it (The arrow hand of the Hawking Clock always pointing to it (0-point) and never, never, anywhere else)). Everything that can exist, exists somewhere in the infinity of finite universes, including every time.

Rod, and also the article's author, don't realize the "expanding forever" of the universe in the article must run hard into, won't get past, the breakdown to the Universe's already existing constant of 'smooth', the randomization to the Universe's already existing constant of 'flat'. Which I, myself, can't see existing anywhere else, in anything else, but at, in, the constant of the speed of light. (I've been trying to get to this [universal dimension] of 'Universe' the whole damn time I've been dealing in this article and couldn't figure out, couldn't see, a path I liked to it until now. The problem now is someone is going to think it must be finite, just because it has a relative value to us, when its not. Along with certain other constants crowding in with it, and I'm not familiar enough with [them] to really put any with it (so only 'maybe' concerning that jamming, smashing, merging, together), it is precisely what that 'flat' / 'smooth' is, infinity (infinite / infinitesimal) wrapping into itself. Thus for the absolutely inflexibly rigid constant it -- the constant of the speed of light -- appears to be as finite, as infinite it couldn't be more flexible.... Someone else, somewhere, must have realized, or at least suspected, the infinite there in it...that it must be.)

There is so much more but it has been gone over elsewhere. Or will be gone over elsewhere sometime or other. Thanks to Space.com for allowing me so much rebuttal space and time, plus so much fleshing out to go with it and give it context.

 

[Atlan0001]

While going over things I wrote and thinking about them, I had a sudden realization I've made a major mistake. Nothing new there. I owe 'Rod' half an apology, Well I'll give a full one. And I may it to 'David-J-Franks' as well. I apologize to them both for calling [Rod's] statement about sad and lonely end being an expansion forever "nonsense". There is such a thing. Very much so. It just goes nowhere. It is a forever expansion to nowhere, one that stays [forever] contained within finitely precise bounds. I even defined and ran with it without realizing what it was. There is nothing like unrealized confirmations of other points being made.