Beginning-less and End-less Universe

Originally posted by lemon lime
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.

But neither is it incumbent upon a universe to redirect its energy to something else. I am not even sure that such redirection is possible. It seems that gravity would rule out a steady state universe. Your claim that it would necessarily 'wind down' is simply unfounded.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But neither is it incumbent upon a universe to redirect its energy to something else. I am not even sure that such redirection is possible. It seems that gravity would rule out a steady state universe. Your claim that it would necessarily 'wind down' is simply unfounded.

I've already explained this, and no where do I say or imply the universe would wind down. I was comparing a swinging pendulum to a (theoretical) oscillation of our universe, and saying that is what could wind down... I did not say the entire universe would wind down.

In another post you said: "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 asked where does the energy go and then answered your own question. So where do you think the energy involved in the act of oscillation (in an Oscillating Universe) might go? Do think maybe it could be redistributed throughout that universe, or do you believe this kind of universe can continue oscillating like a perpetual motion machine?

Bear in mind that this kind of universe never reaches a singularity and starts over, so we are essentially talking about a steady state sort of universe that just happens to be oscillating... physical laws remain intact and are not reformed by the creation of another next universe.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I've already explained this, and no where do I say or imply the universe would wind down. I was comparing a swinging pendulum to a (theoretical) [b]oscillation of our universe, and saying that is what could wind down... I did not say the entire universe would wind down.[/b]

And I too was referring to the oscillation. Sorry if that was not clear.

Do think maybe it could be redistributed throughout that universe, or do you believe this kind of universe can continue oscillating like a perpetual motion machine?
I think it would continue oscillating like a perpetual motion machine. I think the 'big crunch' would be virtually identical each time in terms of what form the energy is in.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I too was referring to the oscillation. Sorry if that was not clear.

[b]Do think maybe it could be redistributed throughout that universe, or do you believe this kind of universe can continue oscillating like a perpetual motion machine?
I think it would continue oscillating like a perpetual motion machine. I think the 'big crunch' would be virtually identical each time in terms of what form the energy is in.[/b]

Good, I'm glad we cleared that up. But just for the record I don't believe the oscillation could continue because I see no reason why it should. I would have to assume the oscillation is in itself a closed system, and energy is somehow prevented from taking any form other than to keep the pendulum swinging (so to speak).

I don't believe oscillation could be maintained because there's nothing to prevent it from winding down. So I believe it would wind down, and the universe would eventually settle into the classical model of a steady state universe. IMO the OU model is an unsustainable compromise between the Steady State and BB models. So in spite of any problems reverse engineering back to a point of origin I think the BB is still the best theory we have.

Originally posted by lemon lime
[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 ...[text shortened]... through logic and reason it might be possible to invalidate one, therefore validating the other.[/b]

All of that proof and such may be left to scientists a couple thousand years into the future, assuming science and civilization makes it through the coming crises and we still HAVE a civilization that can still be scientific a thousand years from now.

It also may be we colonize planets around other stars since we may figure out how to at least get close to the speed of light, if we get like within a 1/10th of a percent of c we can get ourselves out quite a few light years in our own (the travelers) lifespan. Maybe 200 years go by on earth but the travelers could still be alive and think they only took a couple of years to do their trip so colonies around other stars would give us chances we would not have being confined to one planet and all the misery Earth can generate as well as the odd asteroid strike which can definitely ruin your day.

Just saying if we do that, no matter what happens on Earth SOMEONE may be able to answer those questions even if humans get totally offed on Earth.

All that said, the study of the universe will go on as long as there is a scientific civilization as is now and maybe in a thousand or 2 years from now they can answer all those questions. Of course these answers would be coming a tad bit late to help US🙂

Originally posted by lemon lime
But just for the record I don't believe the oscillation could continue because I see no reason why it should.

You just don't have any scientific reasons for that opinion.

I don't believe oscillation could be maintained because there's nothing to prevent it from winding down. So I believe it would wind down, and the universe would eventually settle into the classical model of a steady state universe.
I actually don't know enough about the theory to know what causes the expansion, but it seems pretty obvious that gravity would prevent a situation in which the universe stops contracting. A steady state universe simply couldn't exist - which was one reason the big bang theory was proposed in the first place.

Originally posted by sonhouse
All of that proof and such may be left to scientists a couple thousand years into the future, assuming science and civilization makes it through the coming crises and we still HAVE a civilization that can still be scientific a thousand years from now.

It also may be we colonize planets around other stars since we may figure out how to at least get close ...[text shortened]... answer all those questions. Of course these answers would be coming a tad bit late to help US🙂

I'm both a pessimist and an optimist when it comes to considering what our fate might be. Assuming we find a way to safely travel to other star systems and galaxies, I think finding a habitable planet would be an extremely iffy proposition. Scientists talk about the need for water and being at the right distance from a source of energy (not too close or too far) but those are only two requirements among many others.

Citing just a few of those other requirements... we would need to find a system with the right blend of light and heavy elements, and situated in a safe zone where we wouldn't be too close to or in the path of other stars. We just happen to live in such a safe zone in a stable galaxy where the stars remain in a more or less fixed relative position. We aren't exposed to high levels of radiation from other stars because we are situated near the outermost part of our galaxy between two of the spiral arms. If we were situated within one of those arms or as part of the central mass we would experience intolerable levels of radiation.

And not just any old star would do because distance isn't the only factor...the star we choose to be near would have to conform to something like a Goldilocks standard for the temperature of porridge... not too hot, and not too cold. Our star gives off enough usable energy, but at the same time the earths electromagnetic field is able to slough off most of the dangerous radiation that comes along with it. So we would need to find a similar planet (one that can generate an electromagnetic field) at just the right distance from a star that gives off enough (but not too much) usable energy.

If we ever need to find another place to live then we are probably s*****d, because we can't adapt to just anywhere. We are suited well enough for adaptability in a world that is like an oasis in a hostile desert, but for all we know this may be the only oasis ideally suited for our needs.

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 didn't come from nothing.
I haven't always existed.
Am I the 3rd alternative?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Scientists talk about the need for water and for being at the right distance from a source of energy (not too close or too far) but those are only two requirements among many others.

Its starting to look like those two requirements are easily satisfied though.

Citing just a few of those other requirements... we would also need to find a system with the right blend of light and heavy elements,
Again, easily satisfied.

and situated in a safe zone where we wouldn't be too close to or in the path of other stars.
Only important if we plan to stay there for a very long time.

We just happen to live in such a safe zone in a stable galaxy where the stars remain in a more or less fixed relative position.
Can you give us an estimate as to how big that 'safe zone' is? ie what percentage of the galaxy is 'safe'?

We aren't exposed to high levels of radiation from other stars because we are situated near the outermost part of the galaxy between two of the spiral arms... if we were situated within one of those arms or as a part of the central mass we would experiece intollerable levels of radiation from nearby stars.
I think that apart from supernovas, dangerous radiation from other stars not in a direct orbital relationship with our own star would be practically impossible. How many and how big would such stars have to be in order to outshine our sun? And even if they did have a significant contribution, then it would merely move the 'habitable zone' a bit further away from the sun.

And not just any old star would do because distance isn't the only factor...the star we choose to be near would have to conform to something like a Goldilocks standard for the temperature of porridge... not too hot, and not too cold.
This is simply not true. The Goldilocks zone exists around every star regardless of size. The zone just moves depending on star size.

So like it or not, if we ever need to find another place to live then we are probably s*****d, because we can't adapt to just anywhere. We are suited to adaptability in a world that is like an oasis in a vast desert, and for all we know this may be the only oasis ideally suited for our needs.
Actually its starting to look like planets very similar to ours are pretty common - probably in the billions, just within our galaxy.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I didn't come from nothing.
I haven't always existed.
Am I the 3rd alternative?

No, you have misread his post. He is not saying 'every something came from nothing'. He is saying 'at least one something came from nothing'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, you have misread his post. He is not saying 'every something came from nothing'. He is saying 'at least one something came from nothing'.

This mean that I can safely continue to exist.
Thank you, twhitehead, it makes my life easier.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its starting to look like those two requirements are easily satisfied though.

[b]Citing just a few of those other requirements... we would also need to find a system with the right blend of light and heavy elements,
Again, easily satisfied.

and situated in a safe zone where we wouldn't be too close to or in the path of other stars.
Only ...[text shortened]... anets very similar to ours are pretty common - probably in the billions, just within our galaxy.[/b]

Well, that's a relief. It's good to hear how safe the universe actually is, and how there are so many nice places to visit...

You go first. Send me a postcard.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Well, that's a relief. It's good to hear how safe the universe actually is, and how there are so many nice places to visit...

You go first. Send me a postcard.

Teach me to travel beyond light speed, find me a nice girl to go with me, and I'll be off.

The problem will be deciding where to go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_Mission

In November 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of sun-like stars and red dwarf stars within the Milky Way Galaxy. 11 billion of these estimated planets may be orbiting sun-like stars. The nearest such planet may be 12 light-years away, according to the scientists.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Teach me to travel at light speed, find me a nice girl to go with me, and I'll be off.

Traveling at light speed is easy, but you will have to find the girl... that's not so easy.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Traveling at light speed is easy, but you will have to find the girl... that's not so easy.

Sorry, I edited it to say 'beyond light speed'. I don't fancy spending hundreds of years getting there.