Beginning-less and End-less Universe

Originally posted by lemon lime
A steady state universe means the universe has always existed in its present form.

An Oscillating Universe contracts but stops short of reaching a singularity before it begins expanding again. The Oscillating Universe theory was proposed to overcome a problem with trying to reverse engineer the Big Bang back to its very beginning. The theory resembles ...[text shortened]... y State universe, except that it oscillates instead of remaining in a steady state of existence.

I think we pretty much ruled out a steady state universe since we see the universe is expanding, which is not an attribute of a steady state. So we are in the process of either expanding (in our little space time realm) forever or at some point in time we reach a max stretch and we start contracting again, the oscillating universe concept. Since we don't know if our universe has done that before the only thing we can say is for right now, the universe is expanding and we noted that about 5 billion odd years ago it appears this expansion sped up for some as yet unknown reason.

That is pretty much how it goes scientifically for now, news at 11.

Of course the RJ's among us will soundly refute such radical ideas and say Godidit 6000 years ago and everything else is nonsense. That is to be expected.

My personal opinion is we live in one universe among many others and there is some evidence of other universes banging into ours early on, the record is there in deep analysis of the CMB.

There is a theory that what we see as black holes in our universe creates a new daughter universe, perhaps with physics just a tiny bit changed, maybe the speed of light 186,243 miles per second instead of 186,242 miles per second in our universe, stuff like that.

And the implication there is our universe came from a black hole in a parent universe where the laws of physics were a wee bit different from ours, like the speed of light was 186,241 miles second and so forth.

Of course this is all total speculation at this point but it is fun to visualize all this.

Originally posted by wolfgang59

If we define universe as everything including the supernatural and anything else you want to throw in.

There are only 2 positions:

Something came from nothing.
OR
Something has always existed.

There is no 3rd alternative.

I do not understand why in the beginning you say the universe is defined by EVERYTHING. But below that you say either SOMETHING came from nothing or SOMETHING always existed.

Why were you not consistent?

The universes is defined by EVERYTHING #1

EVERYTHING either came from nothing or EVERYTHING always existed #2.

Why didn't you put it this way ?

Originally posted by sonhouse
I think we pretty much ruled out a steady state universe since we see the universe is expanding, which is not an attribute of a steady state. So we are in the process of either expanding (in our little space time realm) forever or at some point in time we reach a max stretch and we start contracting again, the oscillating universe concept. Since we don't kn ...[text shortened]... .

Of course this is all total speculation at this point but it is fun to visualize all this.

The oscillating universe idea also (supposedly) solves the energy problem, because of the action of oscillation. But it doesn't really solve that problem because like a pendulum, without continually adding energy to the system the process eventually winds down and the universe stops oscillating. New theories designed to solve problems usually have a few built in problems of their own.

The multiverse or parent universe idea is not only dependent on an infinite number of past events but on infinite mass as well. Personally, I have a problem trying to reconcile a conceptual (imaginary) number like infinite with an actual number of things, whether it's a number of past events or an amount of mass.

Originally posted by lemon lime
In a closed system (such as the one you described) energy isn't lost, it dissipates. If it dissipates to the point where there is no longer an imbalance of forces then all physical motion ceases... and when physical motion ceases, cause and effect ceases.

You are basically talking about the second law of thermodynamics.
However, this does not necessarily apply to a universe that expands and contracts regularly.

Aristotle recognised the need for adding energy into an infinite number of cause and effect events...
Aristotle, clearly was thinking of open systems. In closed systems, energy is conserved.

By the way, I don't want to try explaining what the paradoxes are until I've had a chance to review them again. Nevertheless, I am confident none of it will stand up to your scrutiny.
Thats fine. Its just that I have never heard a valid argument that time must be finite but I am always open to new arguments and find them interesting - when well presented.

Originally posted by lemon lime
But it doesn't really solve that problem because like a pendulum, without continually adding energy to the system the process eventually winds down and the universe stops oscillating.

Energy is conserved. It would not 'wind down'.

The multiverse or parent universe idea is not only dependent on an infinite number of past events but on infinite mass as well. Personally, I have a problem trying to reconcile a conceptual (imaginary) number like infinite with an actual number of things, whether it's an infinite number of past events or infinite mass.
The multiverse does not require infinities, although without infinities, it doesn't answer some of the questions being asked. It would be perfectly possible for example for a single 'original' universe to spawn just one child universe -where universe is defined not as 'all that is' but a particular configuration of space time.
I must also say that having difficulty reconciling infinities, does not rule them out any more than difficulty understanding quantum mechanics makes it untrue.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Energy is conserved. It would not 'wind down'.

[b]The multiverse or parent universe idea is not only dependent on an infinite number of past events but on infinite mass as well. Personally, I have a problem trying to reconcile a conceptual (imaginary) number like infinite with an actual number of things, whether it's an infinite number of past e ...[text shortened]... does not rule them out any more than difficulty understanding quantum mechanics makes it untrue.

Energy is conserved. It would not 'wind down'.

I'm not saying energy winds down... I'm saying the act of oscillation would wind down. A pendulum clock will wind down if no energy is added to its system (winding the clock). This doesn't mean energy has disappeared from the universe, it means energy has been redirected.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I'm not saying energy winds down... I'm saying the act of oscillation would wind down. A pendulum clock will wind down if no energy is added to its system (winding the clock). This doesn't mean energy has disappeared from the universe, it means energy has been redirected.

Where does this energy get redirected to? A pendulum only winds down because it emits energy into the rest of the universe. It is not a closed system.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are basically talking about the second law of thermodynamics.
However, this does not necessarily apply to a universe that expands and contracts regularly.

[b]Aristotle recognised the need for adding energy into an infinite number of cause and effect events...
Aristotle, clearly was thinking of open systems. In closed systems, energy is conser ...[text shortened]... be finite but I am always open to new arguments and find them interesting - when well presented.[/b]

I have never heard a valid argument that time must be finite

And I've never heard a valid argument that time must be infinite. I've found holes in theories that assume an infinite number of past events, but that doesn't prove anything one way or the other. So where does that leave us?

There are two possibilities. A finite past and an infinite past. I don't believe either of those can be proven per se. But through logic and reason it might be possible to invalidate one, therefore validating the other.

Originally posted by sonship

[b]If we define universe as everything including the supernatural and anything else you want to throw in.

There are only 2 positions:

Something came from nothing.
OR
Something has always existed.

There is no 3rd alternative.

I do not understand why in the beginning you say the universe is defined by EVERYT ...[text shortened]... r came from nothing or [b]EVERYTHING always existed #2.

Why didn't you put it this way ?[/b]

Because it is obviously false to say "everything has always existed"
the mess on my desk has only been there for the past week (10 days tops!)

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Because it is obviously false to say "everything has always existed"
the mess on my desk has only been there for the past week (10 days tops!)

So which do you believe ?

1.) Everything including the supernatural has always existed.

2.) Everything including the supernatural began to exist.

Do you be so bold as to take a position which you believe ?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Where does this energy get redirected to? A pendulum only winds down because it emits energy into the rest of the universe. It is not a closed system.

You don't think energy can be redirected within a closed system?

The energy found in oscillation wouldn't have to leave the entire system, it would be dispersed (redirected) instead of always being a part of the oscillation. Oscillation is simply something a universe can do or not be doing. It's not incumbent upon a universe to confine or sequester any of its energy to an act of oscillation any more than a pendulum must confine energy to itself and only itself. If energy is prohibited from redirection or dispersion then we may as well toss out the Big Bang theory and go back to believing in a Steady State universe.

As an aside, there's also no reason to believe expansion of the universe will go on forever. If I let go of a helium filled balloon I assume it won't continue rising until it leaves the earths atmosphere and moves out into space away from the earth. By the same token it's reasonable to assume gravitational and anti-gravitational forces within an expanding universe will eventually reach a ballancing point.

Originally posted by sonship
So which do you (W59) believe ?

1.) Everything including the supernatural has always existed.

2.) Everything including the supernatural began to exist.

Do you be so bold as to take a position [b]which you believe ?[/b]

Clearly everything has not always existed in its current form. But we do not necessarily know the all the forms that havebeen taken, by that which has existed for all time. Perhaps has been sometimes formless.

Originally posted by sonship
So which do you believe ?

1.) Everything including the supernatural has always existed.

2.) Everything including the supernatural began to exist.

Do you be so bold as to take a position [b]which you believe ?[/b]

No. I do not have an opinion.

Originally posted by lemon lime
And I've never heard a valid argument that time must be infinite.

Neither have I, therefore I keep an open mind.

There are two possibilities. A finite past and an infinite past. I don't believe either of those can be proven per se. But through logic and reason it might be possible to invalidate one, therefore validating the other.
I fully agree. It is simply unknown at this point.