@ghost-of-a-duke saidIf you watch a campfire you will see that the matter does not disappear due to fire, at the center of fire all of this denigration occurring turns some into sparks of light that can be seen at night for a while, and some of the matter that does not have enough heat to be lit up will be dark matter floating in the sky, so much of it in the form of smoke can block all the light behind it enough of it everything can be obscured.
The "conformal cyclic cosmology” explains that the universe will expand until all matter decays and ultimately turns to light. Since nothing in the universe would have any time or distance scale associated with it, it becomes identical with the Big Bang, resulting in a type of Big Crunch which becomes the next Big Bang, thus continuing the cycle.
If it helps, go ba ...[text shortened]... evant. The entire table shares the same singularity of emptiness and light, ready for the next game.
So how do you get matter that is going through entropy and ultimately turn to light and have any energy in it, if you mean dark as the absence of light no energy no light, if you mean life as in no weight so that it would reverse course and instead of dissipating it not reverses course and come together exactly what force do you think would do that gravity? You think gravity would still be in play but what pushes the universe to spread out is now gone, why?
@kellyjay saidThe model I provided earlier postulates that the current cycle of the universe that we're in was caused by spherical gravitational waves caused by colliding black holes from the previous cycle of the universe.
If you watch a campfire you will see that the matter does not disappear due to fire, at the center of fire all of this denigration occurring turns some into sparks of light that can be seen at night for a while, and some of the matter that does not have enough heat to be lit up will be dark matter floating in the sky, so much of it in the form of smoke can block all the ligh ...[text shortened]... ou think gravity would still be in play but what pushes the universe to spread out is now gone, why?
'Paul Davies considered a scenario in which the Big Crunch happens about 100 billion years from the present. In his model, the contracting universe would evolve roughly like the expanding phase in reverse. First, galaxy clusters, and then galaxies, would merge, and the temperature of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) would begin to rise as CMB photons get blueshifted. Stars would eventually become so close together that they begin to collide with each other. Once the CMB becomes hotter than M-type stars (about 500,000 years before the Big Crunch in Davies' model), they would no longer be able to radiate away their heat and would cook themselves until they evaporate; this continues for successively hotter stars until O-type stars boil away about 100,000 years before the Big Crunch. In the last minutes, the temperature of the universe would be so great that atoms and atomic nuclei would break up and get sucked up into already coalescing black holes. At the time of the Big Crunch, all the matter in the universe would be crushed into an infinitely hot, infinitely dense singularity similar to the Big Bang.[29] The Big Crunch may be followed by another Big Bang, creating a new universe.' (Wiki)
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYour explanation doesn’t account for the totality of what we see, it is only giving an explanation to support a very limited account of one thing.
The model I provided earlier postulates that the current cycle of the universe that we're in was caused by spherical gravitational waves caused by colliding black holes from the previous cycle of the universe.
'Paul Davies considered a scenario in which the Big Crunch happens about 100 billion years from the present. In his model, the contracting universe would evo ...[text shortened]... e Big Bang.[29] The Big Crunch may be followed by another Big Bang, creating a new universe.' (Wiki)
@kellyjay saidIt explains the universe itself. How is that not an account of the totality of what we see?
Your explanation doesn’t account for the totality of what we see, it is only giving an explanation to support a very limited account of one thing.
In contrast you present a creator God who created trillions of galaxies (I'm assuming you believe that) and only put life on one planet.
- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4282
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI don't want to seem as an antagonist, especially to club members. It's a matter of a special conformal coating. I can't say that I don't have my own doubts about God, gods, and science too.
The "conformal cyclic cosmology” explains that the universe will expand until all matter decays and ultimately turns to light. Since nothing in the universe would have any time or distance scale associated with it, it becomes identical with the Big Bang, resulting in a type of Big Crunch which becomes the next Big Bang, thus continuing the cycle.
If it helps, go ba ...[text shortened]... evant. The entire table shares the same singularity of emptiness and light, ready for the next game.
Regarding the pool table analogy, whether one plays snooker or 8 ball on it, the table is still a table, and has not turned into light. The table serves as support for the balls to roll on. The table can be likened to actual space serving as a container for where matter/light play the cyclic changing game. Matter is physical, and light is spiritual.
According to this CCC, every bit of matter will eventually turn into light? You mean something like; Let There Be Light! Since it's supposed to be an eternal repetition, has anyone ever observed this final repetitive phenomenon? Even just one time will be acceptable.
I read that this CCC hypothesis requires that all massive particles eventually vanish from existence, including those which become too widely separated from all other particles to annihilate with them. Proton decay is a possibility contemplated in various speculative extensions of the Standard Model, but it has never been observed. Moreover, all electrons must also decay, or lose their charge and/or mass, and no conventional speculations allow for this.
We can skip over how anything in existence can become non-existent, for now. And agree that matter can be changed into light, and vice versa.
Since science, to be science, and not fiction, mandates that evidence be provided to be a scientific fact, and not a mere theory. Therefore, in order for light to be observed, it needs to interact with matter. The observation of all matter turning into light is an impossible event for an observer. And if it cannot be observed, no evidence can be seen. After all, evidence has to be demonstrated, right?
I cannot see the Big Crunch occurring. Just as I cannot see a Big Bang occurring when no one is there to see it, either. It all comes down to this thing we call faith? However, they say that seeing is believing. Even the doubting Thomas had to be made a believer by seeing, and putting his finger on/in what he was shown... the holes in Jesus' hands, and placing his hand on the side where he was also pierced.
Can you put your finger in a black hole? Can you put your hand on the singularity?
In a repeating eternal universe, could not God become a reality in one of those eternal repetitions? Could that one repetition be this one? Does anyone know, or even imagine all the possibilities and combinations which can come out of anything which is the all, and an eternal all, at that? Could not mountains be moved merely by thought in any of those eternal repetitions? Will the invisible physical laws be ever the same in an eternal repetitive physical universe? Can science tell us that? Or can science tell us how many cycles of Big bang and Big Crush have already occurred? Can they be counted? If they can, then count me in, I'm all for it, table and all.
Anything is possible in an eternal universe, as there is time enough for anything to happen, including eternal repetitions. But God took care of that. He created the water of forgetfulness....one drink too much, and you forget you ever existed before. With each repetition we first drink the water, and it will seem as good as the first time, every time. Only the designated drivers are precluded from drinking, as they have to stay sober to take us back home safely, every time.
- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4282
-Removed-That will not work either. If it will fizzle out it will never be charged with CO2 again, to make life sparkle again. And you need to find the source of the first charge, to make sense of it. It's all a matter of opinion.
"No one knows" is nearly the best position to rest one's mind on. The best and wisest position to take is that "God only knows", since man can only have opinions, at best. This is what I was made to believe, and I repeat what I was told; whether it's right or wrong, God knows.
@pettytalk saidNot antagonistic to disagree in a forum sir. Be pretty boring here if we agreed on everything.
I don't want to seem as an antagonist, especially to club members. It's a matter of a special conformal coating. I can't say that I don't have my own doubts about God, gods, and science too.
@pettytalk saidIt's a cosmic snooker table. The balls were only ever kept in place by gravity.
Regarding the pool table analogy, whether one plays snooker or 8 ball on it, the table is still a table, and has not turned into light. The table serves as support for the balls to roll on. The table can be likened to actual space serving as a container for where matter/light play the cyclic changing game. Matter is physical, and light is spiritual.
@fmf saidYep, looks as though, true to form, Kellyjay has crawled away from addressing this particular nonsensical aspect of his religious beliefs.
But you have stated many, many times that the end of each life is ordained by God and happens when God wants it to happen. It's almost as if you are now trying to distance yourself from that in light of Indonesia Phil's question.
- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4282
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI had a friend in Tennessee who used to make some good moonshine using a still, and the evaporation system. The collected condensation produced what the Native Indians once called, firewater. And science, in excess, like moonshine, will make your head spin.
The model I provided earlier postulates that the current cycle of the universe that we're in was caused by spherical gravitational waves caused by colliding black holes from the previous cycle of the universe.
'Paul Davies considered a scenario in which the Big Crunch happens about 100 billion years from the present. In his model, the contracting universe would evo ...[text shortened]... e Big Bang.[29] The Big Crunch may be followed by another Big Bang, creating a new universe.' (Wiki)
With all the crunching and crushing, where is all the evaporation from all the boiling going? Our universe must not have an automatic safety pressure relief valve.
Black holes are remnants from the previous cycle of the universe? This would mean that the BB and BC cycles are not cycle proof, if the cycles get mixed up. It's more of a tricycle, or a bicycle with training wheels.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidNo, the universe itself includes both the material and immaterial pieces of the whole, not just an object of "the universe" but every one of the bits and pieces that make up the whole, your explanation does not deal with life, morals, none of the systems we see within the universe that deals with hierarchy of information-driven systems within life, none of the properties that have to do with fine-tuning, the mathematical intelligently of the universe that sets it up so that we can understand it. Your explanation could just as easily create an unintelligible universe, so it bypasses the details in this universe and instead deals with some hypothetical ones not part of this discussion.
It explains the universe itself. How is that not an account of the totality of what we see?
In contrast you present a creator God who created trillions of galaxies (I'm assuming you believe that) and only put life on one planet.