The ever-cycling universe cycles back to town

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 16, 2019

Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Physics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

This image represents the evolution of the Universe, starting with the Big Bang. The red arrow marks the flow of time. — Big Bang/NASA

Pausing to rest for a moment at New Scientist:

You might think that the universe started with a big bang. Ten years ago, that is what I thought too. But then I came to realise that the issue is far from settled. Pursuing this question prompted me to change the tack of my career and become a cosmologist, even though I had just completed a PhD in the philosophy of quantum physics. What I have discovered since then supports a radically new response to the question that irked Augustine – what came before the beginning? The answer, thrillingly, may be that there never was a big bang, but instead a universe with no beginning or end, repeatedly bouncing from an epoch of contraction to expansion, and back again.
Anna Ijjas, “What if there was no big bang and we live in an ever-cycling universe?” at New Scientist (paywall)

The war on the Big Bang as an actual beginning can never stop and never will. The main question is whether the war on evidence will settle the issue by allowing whatever view would prevail most “thrillingly” to stand in for science.

Evidence isn’t really at issue; many people today need a universe other than the one we live in and they will theorize their way to it, if only in their own imaginations. But “science” will cooperate if science knows what is good for it.

Experimental physicist Rob Sheldon, our physics color commentator, writes to say,

The Long Ascent: Genesis 1â 11 in Science & Myth, Volume 1 by [Sheldon, Robert]

Anna Ijjas was a post-doc for Paul Steinhardt, and in the past 5 years they have written a number of papers very critical of “inflation”. It’s ironic, because Steinhardt was one of the 3 founders of inflation theory. Just last week we had a mention of his 2017 SciAm blog describing the death of inflation. The problem is that no one knows how to solve all the designed features of the universe without inflation. Evidently Steinhardt and Ijjas came up with a solution (which turns out to be 40 years old), the “Big Bounce”. They argue that all the smoothness of the universe produced by inflation, can also be produced by repeated expansion-contraction-bouncing expansion-contraction-bouncing expansion…

Here’s their 2019 cyclic universe paper:

Abstract: Combining intervals of ekpyrotic (ultra-slow) contraction with a (non-singular) classical bounce naturally leads to a novel cyclic theory of the universe in which the Hubble parameter, energy density and temperature oscillate periodically, but the scale factor grows by an exponential factor from one cycle to the next. The resulting cosmology not only resolves the homogeneity, isotropy, flatness and monopole problems and generates a nearly scale invariant spectrum of density perturbations, but it also addresses a number of age-old cosmological issues that big bang inflationary cosmology does not. There may also be wider-ranging implications for fundamental physics, black holes and quantum measurement. (open access)More.

Sheldon also offers some thoughts on the paper:

Two points:
1) What is really recycling is not the universe, but this theory.
2) None of the previous objections to a “Bouncing Universe” are addressed, rather it is now seen (by Ijjas and Steinhardt) as less objectionable than the justifications for inflation, multiverse, etc. In other words, its new-found attraction is simply by comparison to all the other badly aging theories out there.

Note: Rob Sheldon is the author of Genesis: The Long Ascent.

See also: The Big Bang: Put simply,the facts are wrong.

and

What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Omega is not a real number in the mathematical sense of being a number on the number line. I don't think you could find a reference that says it is. There are numbers such as imaginary numbers; transfinite cardinals such as aleph-null, aleph-one; hyper-reals, etc. that are "actual" numbers in that they are well defined and have mathematics associated with them, but they are not real numbers in the sense of representing a point on the real number line.hazel_{August 17, 2019
August
08
Aug
17
17
2019
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

re 28: Omega refers to the transfinite, which pertains to actual numbers. Perhaps the book you are reading isn't poorly written but instead poorly read.ET_{August 17, 2019
August
08
Aug
17
17
2019
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

re 25: Omega is not a real number, so the expression k-w is meaningless in respect to the real number line. I'm currently reading a poorly written but interesting book on the history of the concept of infinity and its difficulties. I'm not yet to the part on Cantor et al, but I'm confident the above sentence is correct.hazel_{August 17, 2019
August
08
Aug
17
17
2019
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

BB @ 23 "it still has yet to be shown that a mind can exist without matter." Once again, I agree - but once again, the opposite scenario also applies: Have we got evidence of matter existing without mind? Where is such evidence? Absent the existence of mind, how could we ever have any evidence of matter? How would it be possible to demonstrate the existence of matter which persists independently of mind, without the existence of mind? (This is beginning to seem like some sort of ontological koan!)Charles Birch_{August 17, 2019
August
08
Aug
17
17
2019
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

BB, you have improperly reversed the issue. It has been repeatedly highlighted to you that a computational substrate such as a brain cannot credibly account for insightful, intentional rationality. As Reppert highlights, again (and as you have studiously side-stepped any number of times):
. . . let us suppose that brain state A [--> notice, state of a wetware, electrochemically operated computational substrate], which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief [--> concious, perceptual state or disposition] that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.
Matter in the form of computational substrates and what may emerge from them by physical processes does not account for mind. Though, we may profitably discuss quantum influence interfaces etc that may run both ways. The Smith cybernetic loop model then allows us to see how a two-tier controller with a supervisory oracle could account for effective, embodied mind. And as was already noted we need a causally effective world root with deep intelligence to credibly get to a physically expressed causal-temporal world set up for cell based life. Where morally governed rationality multiplies the constraints. Mind antecedent to and causing a material world with intelligent, insightful, morally governed creatures is a very plausible world-frame. Perhaps, you should reconsider the crooked yardstick of default atheistical presumptions and consider it. KFkairosfocus_{August 17, 2019
August
08
Aug
17
17
2019
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

BB, Let's look a bit more at your implied transfinite (beginningless) past and what such a form of words runs into. Where, we may make all sorts of forms of words or symbols by imagining things. However, for such a form to accord with actual or possible reality may be a very different challenge. Consider now, N, and some past finitely remote time K, counted as k finite, causal-temporal, cumulative stages prior. Thus, K +1, K+2 . . . K+n accumulates causally-temporally to now. And, as these stages are causal, energy degradation occurs but that is not primary here (save that it highlights that time is linked to thermodynamic processes tied to causal succession). Proceed backwards beyond K, K-1, K-2, . . . K-m. We are obviously still finitely remote from N. Go beyond, K-(m+1), K-(m+2), K-(m+3) . . . K-(m+p) for reference. You will see that we are laying out another count effectively 0,1,2,3 . . . p steps removed beyond K. And of course from K (effectively set at 0) we go forward some n steps to N. A first consequence is that we may be justified in speaking of some K, finitely removed from now. K can be arbitrarily large (in principle) but is only finitely removed. Finite steps to now can be justified. Next, look at what is happening beyond K. We obviously can in principle go to m, finitely further removed. However, as we try to count onwards, we see an up-count appearing in countable steps, m, m+1, m+2 etc. We can justify reaching successively to some finite m+p, but we can never justify a count like k-(m+[w-1]), k-w, where w is transfinite, omega. That is the transfinite remove beyond k cannot credibly be spanned in finite stage successive steps. We are only justified in speaking of a finitely remote past that accumulates in finite stage steps [think, years for convenience] to reach now. This still obtains if we do not explicitly refer to a specific transfinite value but leave it implicit in the ellipsis. While we may use a loose form of words to talk about a beginningless temporal-causal past that accumulates in finite stages to now, that has serious challenges to be credibly justified on examining causal succession by cumulative finite stages. Where, causal is crucial, we have contingent successive stages. I suggest, a succession of contingent stages does not attain cumulatively to independent, necessary being as causally adequate world root. We need an entity that rises above the contingent, temporal-causal physical order. Where, as a reminder, no-thing is just that, non-being. Were there ever utter non-being or no reality, such has no causal capability and no world would ever be. No-thing would forever obtain. As a world is, something always was which is also causally adequate for a causal-temporal world such as ours. One that is credibly contingently set up at a deeply isolated operating point for C-chem, aqueous medium, cell based life. Further, for life that is embodied but rises beyond GIGO-limited computational substrates to morally governed insightful rationality. That points, again, to a different order of existence for necessary being: minded and capable of creating such a world, grounding moral government. Thus, inherently good and utterly wise as well as powerful and independent as being. We are justified to speak here, of an eternal, transcendent, inherently good, utterly wise, minded order of being as world root. A fairly familiar picture and one Plato spotted oh so long ago in his inference to the good soul as creator of the world, in The Laws Bk X. KFkairosfocus_{August 17, 2019
August
08
Aug
17
17
2019
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

Brother Brian:
Although, it still has yet to be shown that a mind can exist without matter.
Yes, it has. Just because you are too afraid to check it out for yourself doesn't mean the evidence just goes away.ET_{August 17, 2019
August
08
Aug
17
17
2019
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

CB
Well, I agree, but the gist of my comment @13 still applies. If one accepts the possibility that matter can exist eternally, then one must accept the possibility that mind can exist eternally.
I don’t have a problem with that as a possibility. Although, it still has yet to be shown that a mind can exist without matter.Brother Brian_{August 17, 2019
August
08
Aug
17
17
2019
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

BB@ 15: "If (the universe)had no beginning then it requires no cause. The same argument used for God." Well, I agree, but the gist of my comment @13 still applies. If one accepts the possibility that matter can exist eternally, then one must accept the possibility that mind can exist eternally. Unless, of course, one assumes that mind derives from matter - which is the very point at issue. Some scientists and philosophers believe that matter derives from mind; including (as quoted in #13) people of the stature of Planck. Of course, none of the above suggests that this 'Mind' must equate to the 'God' of the Torah/Bible/Quran - although it might do. Many psychonauts down the ages (mystics, NDErs, entheogen ingestors) have encountered what they believe is God, but it's not an old dude with a white beard; rather it is, and contains, all of existence (including us), and is in its essence nothing but infinite love. This is NOT 'pantheism' BTW - the notion that the universe is God or that 'coffee mugs are conscious". Rather it is panentheism - everything is an outflowing of God and is contained within God. In much the same way that your dreams conjure a whole apparently-real world, but the coffee mug in your dream isn't 'conscious', it's *within your consciousness*. Prof. R. C. Henry, who I mentioned @13, was a lifelong atheist until he concluded (by the study of physics, not any kind of theology) that the only reality is Mind - and that we are, as he put it, "dreams in the mind of God". (He was a bit late to the party. Shakespeare got there first when he wrote that "we are such stuff as dreams are made on".)Charles Birch_{August 17, 2019
August
08
Aug
17
17
2019
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

BB, I used it more generally to speak of energy degradation, which is independent of expansion or contraction of a system's scale. Entropy rises with time in a temporal-causal system, given the energy moving downhill driver at work. Try, say a white dwarf formed and then cooling down by radiation, that will not change in a contracting cosmos until average temperatures shift the flow direction, which is a fourth power law. Go back to the three laws (plus the zeroth) and consider microscopic underpinnings. The basic statistics involved will not change and you get the famous arrow. KFkairosfocus_{August 17, 2019
August
08
Aug
17
17
2019
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

KF, the heat death concept was contingent on an ever expanding universe.Brother Brian_{August 17, 2019
August
08
Aug
17
17
2019
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

PS: No composite entity made up from independent proper parts can be necessary. The composition implies contingency, as does having a beginning or end.kairosfocus_{August 17, 2019
August
08
Aug
17
17
2019
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

BB, whether a system is expanding or contracting the degradation of energy connected to temperature will continue. That is a microscopic process, recall statistical thermodynamics (a component of Chemistry as well as Physics) and Prevost's theory of heat exchanges. Next, I did not say that the concept of a wider cosmos as a whole is not put up as a candidate world root necessary independent being, just that such is not plausible. Heat death and its effect on oscillating models is one thing. Another is the basic logical challenge of traversing a past explicit or implicit infinity of time in successive finite stages, a supertask. We can have an ever-growing potential infinite going forward (which always only attains a finite value of states) but traversing such from the past to now is a different problem. Regardless of Russell's refusal to see. KFkairosfocus_{August 17, 2019
August
08
Aug
17
17
2019
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

The universe is physical, consisting of matter and energy. God is not. Only a fool would try to compare the two. Brother Brian is a desperate troll.ET_{August 17, 2019
August
08
Aug
17
17
2019
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

KF
An oscillating universe model faces ever-mounting entropy, degradation of energy concentrations, leading to it not being plausible that an eternally cycling cosmos as a whole is the root of reality.
Yes, entropy etc. is the law for an expanding universe. But if our universe were a contracting one, would this still apply? I doubt it.Brother Brian_{August 17, 2019
August
08
Aug
17
17
2019
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

CB
Well, let’s assume it can. That means uncaused causes are possible.
Not if the universe is eternal. If it had no beginning then it requires no cause. The same argument used for God.Brother Brian_{August 17, 2019
August
08
Aug
17
17
2019
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

F/N: An oscillating universe model faces ever-mounting entropy, degradation of energy concentrations, leading to it not being plausible that an eternally cycling cosmos as a whole is the root of reality. KF PS: It is ever so interesting to see refusal to cogently address logic of being in action. There are candidates to be as suggested. Some are impossible of being as core characteristics are mutually contradictory, e.g. square circles. Others are possible i.e. would be in at least one possible world. If in some but not others, contingent and so dependent on external enabling causes, e.g. a fire. If in all, then framework for a world to be, called NECESSARY BEING (the term BB dodged). Where, if N is a serious candidate necessary being, either it is impossible of being or it is possible -- and as framework for any world to be -- actual. Utter non-being (= no reality) has no causal powers and were such ever the case no world would exist. That a world is implies a necessary, world-framework independent being exists as causally adequate framework for this and any other world. God is the most serious candidate for many good reasons (start with us as morally governed creatures and what adequately grounds such), and either is impossible of being or is actual. Given state of issues, we may freely summarise that there is no cogent reason to see God as impossible of being, so there is every good reason to hold that he is actual.kairosfocus_{August 17, 2019
August
08
Aug
17
17
2019
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT}

BB @ 7: "If, as theists claim, God is an uncaused being, why can’t a cycling universe be uncaused." Well, let's assume it can. That means uncaused causes are possible. When we boil reality down to its basics, we know that it seems to consist of two 'ontological primitives': 1) Matter 2) Mind The question then is, 'which of these is the uncaused cause from which the other derives?' At the moment, the consensus of the Academy is that mind emerges from matter. However, there are many problems with this theory, much of which has been discussed on this Forum. The alternative, that matter emerges from Mind, is gaining traction. Some heavy hitters have held this view, notably Max Planck: "We cannot get behind consciousness. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness." Contemporary scholars who postulate Mind as the ground of all being, include astrophysicist Richard Conn Henry (see his famous - or maybe infamous - essay in Nature, 'The Mental Universe', in which he proposes that monistic idealism is an inescapable conclusion from the scientific evidence) and double-PhD philosopher/computer scientist Bernardo Kastrup. So yes, you could have always-existing matter. But once you admit the possibility of uncaused causes, the opposite pole - always-existing mind - becomes equally likely. The old canard 'Who made God?' is then disposable; nothing needs to have made God if one accepts the possibility of uncaused causes. It then becomes a matter (pun not intended) of evidence and Ockham's Razor. And Conn Henry will tell you (and prove to you with mathematics) that the evidence favours uncaused Mind, while Kastrup will demonstrate that uncaused Mind is a more parsimonious explanation for existence than uncaused matter; William of Ockham would approve.Charles Birch_{August 17, 2019
August
08
Aug
17
17
2019
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PDT}

>if the universe, in a cycling fashion, always existed (is eternal), it doesn’t need a cause. Something has to be responsible for the cyclical system as a whole existing, even if one can conjure up an explanation for why it doesn't run out of energy. (It can't be because we're close to the "start", because it supposedly didn't have one.)EDTA_{August 16, 2019
August
08
Aug
16
16
2019
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT}

EDTA
Because a material universe (cycling or one-time) ultimately requires an explanation that lies outside of the material.
Why? Just like God, if the universe, in a cycling fashion, always existed (is eternal), it doesn’t need a cause.Brother Brian_{August 16, 2019
August
08
Aug
16
16
2019
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

If, as theists claim, God is an uncaused being, why can’t a cycling universe be uncaused.
The uncaused effect. That will be a boon for science.ET_{August 16, 2019
August
08
Aug
16
16
2019
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

BB, >If, as theists claim, God is an uncaused being, why can’t a cycling universe be uncaused. Because a material universe (cycling or one-time) ultimately requires an explanation that lies outside of the material. ("Where did the entire system come from?" is just one question that needs an extra-material answer. At least for the curious.) It's not as obvious that an immaterial being needs a cause.EDTA_{August 16, 2019
August
08
Aug
16
16
2019
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT}

Brother Brian @ 7
If, as theists claim, God is an uncaused being, why can’t a cycling universe be uncaused.
Good question. And of course a cycling universe would be more environmentally friendly than one belching pollution out of a tail-pipe.Seversky_{August 16, 2019
August
08
Aug
16
16
2019
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

If, as theists claim, God is an uncaused being, why can’t a cycling universe be uncaused.Brother Brian_{August 16, 2019
August
08
Aug
16
16
2019
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

However we turn it we keep coming back to an uncaused first cause or an eternal "something" Neither is particularly acceptable but, for the life of me I can't think of an alternative. We must be missing something.Seversky_{August 16, 2019
August
08
Aug
16
16
2019
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

As to the evidence for a flat universe, (which, as mentioned in post 1, was a major line of evidence that helped rule out the conjecture that we live in a 'bouncing' universe), there are some further interesting consequences, besides overturning the 'bouncing universe', to the universe being exceptionally flat. One consequence to the universe being exceptionally flat, the tiny temperature variations in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) correspond to the largest scale structures of the observable universe. "If the universe was curved in any way, these temperature variations would appear distorted compared to the actual size that we see these structures today."
How do we know the universe is flat? Discovering the topology of the universe – by Fraser Cain – June 7, 2017 Excerpt: With the most sensitive space-based telescopes they have available, astronomers are able to detect tiny variations in the temperature of this background radiation. And here’s the part that blows my mind every time I think about it. These tiny temperature variations correspond to the largest scale structures of the observable universe. A region that was a fraction of a degree warmer become a vast galaxy cluster, hundreds of millions of light-years across. The cosmic microwave background radiation just gives and gives, and when it comes to figuring out the topology of the universe, it has the answer we need. If the universe was curved in any way, these temperature variations would appear distorted compared to the actual size that we see these structures today. But they’re not. To best of its ability, ESA’s Planck space telescope, can’t detect any distortion at all. The universe is flat.,,, Since the universe is flat now, it must have been flat in the past, when the universe was an incredibly dense singularity. And for it to maintain this level of flatness over 13.8 billion years of expansion, in kind of amazing. In fact, astronomers estimate that the universe must have been flat to 1 part within 1×10^57 parts. Which seems like an insane coincidence. https://phys.org/news/2017-06-universe-flat-topology.html
Moreover, the large scale structures of the universe, (i.e. quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe), reveal a "surprising rotational coincidence for Earth,"
Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky? - Ashok K. Singal - May 17, 2013 Abstract: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies (directionally dependent observations), which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the eclipticcite {20,16,15}. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropiescite {17}. Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most intensively studies sample of strong radio sourcescite{21,22,3}. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations. Further, even the distribution of observed radio sizes of quasars and radio galaxies show large systematic differences between these two sky regions. The redshift distribution appear to be very similar in both regions of sky for all sources, which rules out any local effects to be the cause of these anomalies. Two pertinent questions then arise. First, why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the most distant discrete sources implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth's rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon. http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4134
Moreover, when they ‘smeared’ and/or ‘averaged out’ the tiny temperature variations in the CMBR, they were able to detect the anomalies in the CMBR which ‘strangely’ line up with the earth and solar system. At the 13:55 minute mark of this following video, Max Tegmark, an atheist who specializes in this area of study, finally admits, post Planck 2013, that the CMBR anomalies do indeed line up with the earth and solar system
“Thoughtcrime: The Conspiracy to Stop The Principle” – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0eVUSDy_rO0#t=832
Here is an excellent clip from “The Principle” that explains these ‘anomalies’ in the CMBR that line up with the earth and solar system in an easy to understand manner.
Cosmic Microwave Background Proves Intelligent Design (disproves Copernican principle) (clip of “The Principle”) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htV8WTyo4rw
In other words, the "tiny temperature variations" in the CMBR, (from the large scale structures in the universe, to the earth and solar system themselves), reveal teleology, (i.e. a goal directed purpose, a plan, a reason), that specifically included the earth from the start. ,,, The earth, from what our best science can now tell us, is not some random cosmic fluke as atheists had presupposed.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
On top of all that, in the following paper, Robin Collins found that photons coming from the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) are ‘such as to maximize the intensity of the CMB as observed by typical observers.’
The Fine-Tuning for Discoverability – Robin Collins – March 22, 2014 Excerpt: Predictive and Explanatory Power of Discoverability – Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation ,,, The most dramatic confirmation of the discoverability/livability optimality thesis (DLO) is the dependence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) on the baryon to photon ratio.,,, ,,, The only livability effect this ratio has is on whether or not galaxies can form that have near – optimally livability zones. As long as this condition is met, the value of this ratio has no further effects on livability. Hence, the DLO predicts that within this range, the value of this ratio will be such as to maximize the intensity of the CMB as observed by typical observers. According to my calculations – which have been verified by three other physicists — to within the margin of error of the experimentally determined parameters (~20%), the value of the photon to baryon ratio is such that it maximizes the CMB. This is shown in Figure 1 below. (pg. 13) This is a case of a teleological thesis serving both a predictive and an ultimate explanatory role.,,, http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/Greer-Heard%20Forum%20paper%20draft%20for%20posting.pdf
bornagain77_{August 16, 2019
August
08
Aug
16
16
2019
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

Wouldn’t cyclic universes have a problem with junk being left behind on top of the fact that it also might produce effects that could be seen throughout its entire existence? I only asked this question because I can’t imagine that it would be able to perfectly pull back every particle that it had spewed out in the first place It would leave litter Or that’s what I would think I could be wrongAaronS1978_{August 16, 2019
August
08
Aug
16
16
2019
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

From a purely objective point of view, there is the FACT that chemical elements appeared in stages, with the "creation" (construction?) of lighter elements (hydrogen & helium) first, and stuff like iron showing up MUCH later. That is, the chemical elements "evolved". And so 1st and 2nd generation GALAXIES, not stars but entire galaxies, CANNOT produce Life because they don't contain "heavy" elements like carbon and iron. It was only with the appearance of 3rd & 4th generation galaxies that there were enough heavy elements around to allow the formation of things like H20 and CO2. Similarly, the newer galaxies, which formed from the 3rd & 4th junk, have TOO MANY heavy elements (radium, uranium, thorium, etc.) to allow life to SURVIVE. If the amount of thorium in Earth's crust was only SLIGHTLY higher, the crust would MELT and Earth would have no solid ground. So, any Cycling Universe should have similar problems with each new instance BEGINNING with too much stuff heavier than helium. And we can observe galaxies in our instance of the universe that we can reliably label as lacking heavy elements. So, as the song says: First, when there's nothing... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILWSp0m9G2U Vincevmahuna_{August 16, 2019
August
08
Aug
16
16
2019
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

nice article. the same reason so much push back vs a big bang to start is having to deal w/ a start, is a start attests to The One supernatural-designer creator aka G-d of Abraham, just as described by Moses to begin with. all the empirical observations do align with a start, by one hyper-dense miniscule area that contained the entire physical universe, than hyper rapid cosmic inflation expansion, into the mature size and density universe, by the end of that cosmic expansion, relatively early in the history of the universe. So if you are into steady state oscillation, as a PhD thereon on our team is, we are stable on the first plateau. reference the YeC Moshe Emes series for Torah and science alignment volume II aka 'SPIRAL' www.amazon.com/dp/B07DP4TBZ5Pearlman_{August 16, 2019
August
08
Aug
16
16
2019
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

"And if there were a pre-Big Bang state and you had some bounces, then that fine tuning (for entropy) gets even finer as you go backwards if you can even imagine such a thing. ” Dr. Bruce Gordon
“An explosion you think of as kind of a messy event. And this is the point about entropy. The explosion in which our universe began was not a messy event. And if you talk about how messy it could have been, this is what the Penrose calculation is all about essentially. It looks at the observed statistical entropy in our universe. The entropy per baryon. And he calculates that out and he arrives at a certain figure. And then he calculates using the Bekenstein-Hawking formula for Black-Hole entropy what the,,, (what sort of entropy could have been associated with,,, the singularity that would have constituted the beginning of the universe). So you've got the numerator, the observed entropy, and the denominator, how big it (the entropy) could have been. And that fraction turns out to be,, 1 over 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power. Let me just emphasize how big that denominator is so you can gain a real appreciation for how small that probability is. So there are 10^80th baryons in the universe. Protons and neutrons. No suppose we put a zero on every one of those. OK, how many zeros is that? That is 10^80th zeros. This number has 10^123rd zeros. OK, so you would need a hundred million, trillion, trillion, trillion, universes our size, with zero on every proton and neutron in all of those universes just to write out this number. That is how fine tuned the initial entropy of our universe is. And if there were a pre-Big Bang state and you had some bounces, then that fine tuning (for entropy) gets even finer as you go backwards if you can even imagine such a thing. ” Dr Bruce Gordon - Contemporary Physics and God Part 2 - video – 1:50 minute mark - video https://youtu.be/ff_sNyGNSko?t=110
The recycling universe conjecture has also been totally crushed by the hard evidence for a 'flat' universe found by the 'BOOMERANG' experiment as well as other experiments.
Refutation of Bouncing (Oscillating) Universe - Michael Strauss – video (12:00 minute mark) https://vimeo.com/9195703 Evidence For Flat Universe - Boomerang Project http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/boomerang-flat.html http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/images1/omegamomegal3.gif updated boomerang - picture https://uncommondescent.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/t1_cos_combined1.gif How do we know the universe is flat? Discovering the topology of the universe – by Fraser Cain – June 7, 2017 Excerpt: We say that the universe is flat, and this means that parallel lines will always remain parallel. 90-degree turns behave as true 90-degree turns, and everything makes sense.,,, Since the universe is flat now, it must have been flat in the past, when the universe was an incredibly dense singularity. And for it to maintain this level of flatness over 13.8 billion years of expansion, in kind of amazing. In fact, astronomers estimate that the universe must have been flat to 1 part within 1×10^57 parts. Which seems like an insane coincidence. https://phys.org/news/2017-06-universe-flat-topology.html
Verse
Job 38:4-5 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?
bornagain77_{August 16, 2019
August
08
Aug
16
16
2019
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply