Beginning-less and End-less Universe

Originally posted by twhitehead
You just don't have any scientific reasons for that opinion.

[b]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 ...[text shortened]... imply couldn't exist - which was one reason the big bang theory was proposed in the first place.[/b]

...it seems pretty obvious that gravity would prevent a situation in which the universe stops contracting.

Gravity was one of the forces that came into existence after the universe began to expand, so it begs the question of what might cause a last and final crunch down into a singularity. It actually begs two questions: How is a final crunch accomplished, and what causes the expansion.

A steady state universe simply couldn't exist - which was one reason the big bang theory was proposed in the first place.

It was the other way around. Very few scientists doubted or questioned the SS model until evidence was found pointing in another direction. And even then it wasn't until predictions (based on the BB) were confirmed that the Steady State model was finally put to rest. No one gave up the SS model because it couldn't exist, it was pushed aside because of overwhelming evidence pointing to a different kind of model.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Gravity was one of the forces that came into existence after the universe began to expand, so it begs the question of what might cause a last and final crunch down into a singularity. It actually begs two questions: How is a final crunch accomplished, and what causes the expansion.

Lots of good questions which until they are answered make your claim unfounded.

It was the other way around. Very few scientists doubted or questioned the SS model until evidence was found pointing in another direction. And even then it wasn't until predictions (based on the BB) were confirmed that the Steady State model was finally put to rest. No one gave up the SS model because it couldn't exist, it was pushed aside because of overwhelming evidence pointing to a different kind of model.
You are correct, I got it wrong. However, my claim still stands - a steady state universe violates the known laws of physics, so your idea of energy dissipating into some other form over time just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Lots of good questions which until they are answered make your claim unfounded.

[b]It was the other way around. Very few scientists doubted or questioned the SS model until evidence was found pointing in another direction. And even then it wasn't until predictions (based on the BB) were confirmed that the Steady State model was finally put to rest. No ...[text shortened]... our idea of energy dissipating into some other form over time just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

The SS model violates the presently known laws of physics, not the known laws of physics when it was an established theory. You can't just mash historical contexts together and then expect me to believe something could have been known before it was known.

Our discussion of whether or not an oscillating universe could continue oscillating has nothing to do with the difference between the BB and SS models. According to you it would continue oscillating. Why would it continue oscillating if, according to you, because of gravity it shouldn't be oscillating in the first place? It's obviously a theoretical model that doesn't work... and I'm still not convinced you understood what I was talking about regarding the transference of energy within a closed system.

It's not enough to simply disagree and demand reasons without offering reasons of your own. You claimed I gave no (scientific) reason why it wouldn't continue oscillating, and yet you gave no reason why it would. Did you seriously think I wouldn't notice that?

Originally posted by lemon lime
The SS model violates the presently known laws of physics, not the known laws of physics when it was an established theory. You can't just mash historical contexts together and then expect me to believe something could have been known before it was known.

I already conceded that I got the history wrong.

Our discussion of whether or not an oscillating universe could continue oscillating has nothing to do with the difference between the BB and SS models.
It does have to do with weather a SS model is possible. You were claiming that the oscillating would dissipate in some way and end up with a SS universe.

According to you it would continue oscillating. Why would it continue oscillating if, according to you, because of gravity it shouldn't be oscillating in the first place?
I actually don't know why it is currently expanding. But what I am saying is that a steady state would not be possible - therefore it must continue oscillating.

It's obviously a theoretical model that doesn't work... and I'm still not convinced you understood what I was talking about regarding the transference of energy within a closed system.
I am not sure you understood it either. Can you give some sort of suggestion as to where this energy will get transferred to?

It's not enough to simply disagree and demand reasons without offering reasons of your own. You claimed I gave no (scientific) reason why it wouldn't continue oscillating, and yet you gave no reason why it would. Did you seriously think I wouldn't notice that?
I did give a reason why it wouldn't. The SS model is unstable.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I already conceded that I got the history wrong.

[b]Our discussion of whether or not an oscillating universe could continue oscillating has nothing to do with the difference between the BB and SS models.
It does have to do with weather a SS model is possible. You were claiming that the oscillating would dissipate in some way and end up with a SS ...[text shortened]... hink I wouldn't notice that?[/b]
I did give a reason why it wouldn't. The SS model is unstable.[/b]

It does have to do with weather a SS model is possible. You were claiming that the oscillating would dissipate in some way and end up with a SS universe.

Oh good grief... We were talking about two theoretical models that neither of us believe is possible. Okay then, so humor me, if the oscillation wound down then what sort of universe would you be looking at?

And please don't try telling me it would look like the Big Bang model.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I already conceded that I got the history wrong.

[b]Our discussion of whether or not an oscillating universe could continue oscillating has nothing to do with the difference between the BB and SS models.
It does have to do with weather a SS model is possible. You were claiming that the oscillating would dissipate in some way and end up with a SS ...[text shortened]... hink I wouldn't notice that?[/b]
I did give a reason why it wouldn't. The SS model is unstable.[/b]

Can you give some sort of suggestion as to where this energy will get transferred to?

Maybe this will help. I've been trying to remember the name of a particular kind of stone that was discovered in a dig among some human artifacts. The shape of these stones is like an irregularly shaped cucumber cut in half along its length. If you set the stone on a table or other flat surface with the rounded part touching the table (the other side is more or less flat) and then tap it one side, it rotates untils it slows down and stops. But tap it on the other side the stone will quickly slow down and start rocking, then reverses its direction of rotation. The energy applied to the stone starts the stone rotating, is then transfered into a rocking motion, and then into causing the stone to rotate in the opposite direction.

I know this is true because at one time I purchased a hard plastic model of what these stones look like, and this is exactly what happens. When my kids were very young that was my big magic trick... using only the power of my mind (and waving my hands in the air) I could cause an object to stop rotating, and then make it rotate in the opposite direction.

This is an example of how energy can be transferred within a system without necessarily leaving that system. The principle is the same whether we are talking about an open or closed system. The same thing can happen in either system, the only difference is one eventually loses that energy (the open system) and the other doesn't (the closed system).

Originally posted by lemon lime
Oh good grief... We were talking about two theoretical models that neither of us believe is possible. Okay then, so humor me, if the oscillation wound down then what sort of universe would you be looking at?

Obviously, the only other possible universe: a steady state one. Or I suppose, a continually expanding one, but I thought we were discussing a universe that did not have infinite expansion.

Originally posted by lemon lime
This is an example of how energy can be transferred within a system without necessarily leaving that system. The principle is the same whether we are talking about an open or closed system. The same thing can happen in either system, the only difference is one eventually loses that energy (the open system) and the other doesn't (the closed system).

I am perfectly well aware of the possibility that energy can change form. You still haven't answered the question though.
And by the way, the system you gave as an example, is not a closed system and violates conservation of angular momentum so it is clearly interacting with its surroundings.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Obviously, the only other possible universe: a steady state one. Or I suppose, a continually expanding one, but I thought we were discussing a universe that did not have infinite expansion.

We've been talking about more than one thing, and so this may have led to some confusion.

I thought we were talking about a universe that did not have infinite expansion too, but you just now stated the idea of continuous expansion so I think we both know who first brought up that idea... or do we?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am perfectly well aware of the possibility that energy can change form. You still haven't answered the question though.
And by the way, the system you gave as an example, is not a closed system and violates conservation of angular momentum so it is clearly interacting with its surroundings.

Yes, the rotating stone is not a closed system... if that's what you meant.

And okay, maybe it was an illegal object, seeing as how it violated some physical law. So what? It still existed, and did what I told you it was doing. But if the thing is only resting on one point (the point of rotation) then what exactly in its surroundings do you think it might have been interacting with? My telekinetic powers?

By the way, the explanation I gave about the transference of energy comes from physicists who have studied this object. So unless you think the known laws of physics don't apply or you believe they pulled this explanation out of their collective a-holes, there is really no basis for objecting to it.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I thought we were talking about a universe that did not have infinite expansion too, but you just now stated the idea of continuous expansion so I think we both know who first brought up that idea... or do we?

I really don't know what your point is here. Just trying to be argumentative over nothing perhaps?
All I am saying is there are only three possible universes:
1. One that expands and contracts periodically.
2. One that does not expand or contract.
3. One that expands continuously.
There is no other possibility. You seem to agree with me that 2. is not possible, yet simultaneously deny 1 is possible and agree that 3. is currently excluded from the discussion. So whats left?

Originally posted by lemon lime
And okay, maybe it was an illegal object, seeing as how it violated some physical law. So what? It still existed, and did what I told you it was doing. But if the thing is only resting on one point (the point of rotation) then what exactly in its surroundings do you think it might have been interacting with? My telekinetic powers?

I don't believe it is resting on a stationary point. Do you have any references with pictures so I can see what we are discussing?

By the way, the explanation I gave about the transference of energy comes from physicists who have studied this object. So unless you think the known laws of physics don't apply or you believe they pulled this explanation out of their collective a-holes, there is really no basis for objecting to it.
What I think is that you did not understand their explanation. I can assure you that the contact with the outside world is absolutely essential in that example. It is not a closed system.

Originally posted by wittywonka
I've heard of the Oscillating Universe theory, though I don't know much about it. And I have no idea what the Steady State theory is.

Steady state is when you are sober,joking,its when all the possible interaction between particles reaches zero,absolute zero.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't believe it is resting on a stationary point. Do you have any references with pictures so I can see what we are discussing?

[b]By the way, the explanation I gave about the transference of energy comes from physicists who have studied this object. So unless you think the known laws of physics don't apply or you believe they pulled this explanatio ...[text shortened]... ntact with the outside world is absolutely essential in that example. It is not a closed system.

Yeah, I can see you don't believe it... I didn't think you would. If I can find the name of these stones and provide a link to a real science article (and not just some news source) then I expect you will say the reason you didn't believe it is because I didn't explain it very well.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't believe it is resting on a stationary point. Do you have any references with pictures so I can see what we are discussing?

[b]By the way, the explanation I gave about the transference of energy comes from physicists who have studied this object. So unless you think the known laws of physics don't apply or you believe they pulled this explanatio ...[text shortened]... ntact with the outside world is absolutely essential in that example. It is not a closed system.

It is not a closed system.

I did not say the rotating stone is a closed system, what I said was:

"This is an example of how energy can be transferred within a system without necessarily leaving that system. The principle is the same whether we are talking about an open or closed system. The same thing can happen in either system, the only difference is one eventually loses that energy (the open system) and the other doesn't (the closed system)."