Big bang in reverse?

[Just_me_Mike]

No doubt, but if I can learn in the process I accept flawed approaches. I would be bored out of my mind if I stayed in the same area of understanding all the time.
The greater good would be for someone more knowledgeable then me to help me understand.

 

[themadhair]

The greater good would be for someone more knowledgeable then me to help me understand.

I’ll bite.

Asking whether the current universal expansion is simply part of a cosmological exhalation begs the obvious question – will the current universe begin to collapse in on itself and what does the current evidence say?

There is only one attractive force on a universal scale that we currently know of – gravity. This then begs the question of whether there is sufficient matter in the universe to generate a strong enough gravitational field to eventually overcome the current expansion. Most of the matter exerting a gravitational force is the dark matter, and there is a lot of science demonstrating its existence and some of its properties (such as its non-baryonic nature).

However, the above argument has run into a bit of a problem. The assumption that gravity should be slowing down the universal expansion makes sense. Except for one little thing – the expansion of the universe isn’t slowing down, and is in fact speeding up. This accelerating force is attributed to dark energy. To emphasise this point – the term dark energy is used merely as a placeholder because no one really knows anything about it other than it causes the universal expansion to accelerate.

At this point you can see why, in terms of your OP, it makes no sense to combine dark energy and dark matter.

So where does all this leave the OP? At present the accelerating universal expansion would seem to suggest that a big rip is inevitable, breaking the idea of cosmological breathing. It should be noted that the accelerating expansion isn’t a theoretical construct but a direct observation on distant objects and their increased acceleration. At the moment, given what is known, the idea of cosmological breathing is completely up **** creek without a paddle.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I’ll bite.

Asking whether the current universal expansion is simply part of a cosmological exhalation begs the obvious question – will the current universe begin to collapse in on itself and what does the current evidence say?

There is only one attractive force on a universal scale that we currently know of – gravity. This then begs the question of whether there is sufficient matter in the universe to generate a strong enough gravitational field to eventually overcome the current expansion. Most of the matter exerting a gravitational force is the dark matter, and there is a lot of science demonstrating its existence and some of its properties (such as its non-baryonic nature).

However, the above argument has run into a bit of a problem. The assumption that gravity should be slowing down the universal expansion makes sense. Except for one little thing – the expansion of the universe isn’t slowing down, and is in fact speeding up. This accelerating force is attributed to dark energy. To emphasise this point – the term dark energy is used merely as a placeholder because no one really knows anything about it other than it causes the universal expansion to accelerate.

At this point you can see why, in terms of your OP, it makes no sense to combine dark energy and dark matter.

So where does all this leave the OP? At present the accelerating universal expansion would seem to suggest that a big rip is inevitable, breaking the idea of cosmological breathing. It should be noted that the accelerating expansion isn’t a theoretical construct but a direct observation on distant objects and their increased acceleration. At the moment, given what is known, the idea of cosmological breathing is completely up **** creek without a paddle.

Thank you for the insight, as that correlates with what I have been studying exactly. However reading your post made me ask the next question leaving the spirit of the OP. Why can't there be more gravity from another universe pulling ours faster as it gets closer to that other universe? This other universe having more matter than ours?
In other words it would imply our universe may have started from a central bang but other universes may have already existed, which would explain the acceleration, right?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I’ll bite.

Asking whether the current universal expansion is simply part of a cosmological exhalation begs the obvious question – will the current universe begin to collapse in on itself and what does the current evidence say?

There is only one attractive force on a universal scale that we currently know of – gravity. This then begs the question of whether there is sufficient matter in the universe to generate a strong enough gravitational field to eventually overcome the current expansion. Most of the matter exerting a gravitational force is the dark matter, and there is a lot of science demonstrating its existence and some of its properties (such as its non-baryonic nature).

However, the above argument has run into a bit of a problem. The assumption that gravity should be slowing down the universal expansion makes sense. Except for one little thing – the expansion of the universe isn’t slowing down, and is in fact speeding up. This accelerating force is attributed to dark energy. To emphasise this point – the term dark energy is used merely as a placeholder because no one really knows anything about it other than it causes the universal expansion to accelerate.

At this point you can see why, in terms of your OP, it makes no sense to combine dark energy and dark matter.

So where does all this leave the OP? At present the accelerating universal expansion would seem to suggest that a big rip is inevitable, breaking the idea of cosmological breathing. It should be noted that the accelerating expansion isn’t a theoretical construct but a direct observation on distant objects and their increased acceleration. At the moment, given what is known, the idea of cosmological breathing is completely up **** creek without a paddle.

Also, could you clarify why acceleration means it can't decelerate? I mean when we hit a ball it goes fast and then slows down. I have read this is a theory too, and is independent of gravity, but just that energy is dissipating.

Thanks...

 

[themadhair]

Why can't there be more gravity from another universe pulling ours faster as it gets closer to that other universe?

If there were such a universe external to ours then such a scenario would be a possibility but with extreme complications that I’m not going into for the moment. The problem with this scenario is where such a universe would reside and why such a universe is exerting a force homogenously* to our universe.

*Homogeneous means the same everywhere. How can an external universe be exerting a gravitational force of equal strength at every point in our universe? Gravity weakens by distance, and this isn’t the case with the universal acceleration.

Also, could you clarify why acceleration means it can't decelerate?

Not sure what you are asking here. When the observations discovered that the universe was accelerating it came as a complete surprise. The acceleration is an observation. Why it is accelerating is an open question.

I mean when we hit a ball it goes fast and then slows down.

The ball slows down because the kinetic energy it contains gets converted to sound, heat and kinetic energy in other objects due to the presence of friction. If the ball were set in motion in a friction free environment it would continue in motion until it encountered an environment with friction.

I have read this is a theory too, and is independent of gravity, but just that energy is dissipating.

This is mechanics. The dissipation of energy can be expressly measured and calculated. This situation is so far removed from universal expansion, in that the thing being expanded is spacetime itself within the context of universal expansion. You really can’t compare the two situations.

 

[S-word]

How do we know that the expansion we see is not just a comsomological giant inhale and exhale? It seems to me that the whole theory is hinged on the fact that we found the universe expanding. However, so does my rib cage when I inhale, but eventually I exhale and it collapses. Can the size of the universe not mask the time factor of how long it expands?

I realize there is a cooling factor as well, can someone explain to me why the cooling aspect supports only an expanding universe, and not an inhale/exhale universe?

Any thoughts?
Thanks...

There are many, many, universes within the eternal constant Cosmos, constant in the fact that it is constantly evolving and cannot do otherwise. Far out in interstellar space, there are many Super Black Holes that are called the Great Gatherers.

Rather than moving away from us as an expanding universe would demand, the galaxy known as Andromeda is speeding toward us on an apparent collision course and Andromeda as with our Galaxy “The Milky Way” are counted among billions of galaxies within this universal cluster, that are falling in toward one of the Great gatherers, and this universe will one day roll up as a scroll with a great hissing noise as the universal elements become so excited they will burn up and fall as massive columns of fire beyond all measure in height and depth, into the Great abyss from which we originated.

And all that had originated from the infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small primordial atom that was torn asunder for the foundation of this world, will be condensed back into that original supposedly primordial Atom, which will then continue to gather all the expended energy of all the other cosmic cells until the gravitational crushing force of the super black hole can no longer
contain our awakening God who will burst forth and be torn asunder once again for the resurrection of his old universal body, in which He the Logos, the divine animating principle who pervades all that exists, will contue on in the eternal process of evolution or Growth to those that "evolution" seems to be a dirty word etc.

 

[Beaudreaux]

How do we know that the expansion we see is not just a comsomological giant inhale and exhale? It seems to me that the whole theory is hinged on the fact that we found the universe expanding. However, so does my rib cage when I inhale, but eventually I exhale and it collapses. Can the size of the universe not mask the time factor of how long it expands?
I realize there is a cooling factor as well, can someone explain to me why the cooling aspect supports only an expanding universe, and not an inhale/exhale universe?

Any thoughts?
Thanks...

The big gnab?

 

[Mr Cheese]

religion has posited this subject for millenia....

science really is discussing nothing new...

Religion has posited a series of "expansion" , "collapse" and further "expansion" and "collapse" and "expans..." etc. for a long long time before science ever did.

But I understand that will just upset many

 

[themadhair]

science really is discussing nothing new...

The introduction of evidence isn’t new? Really?

 

[S-word]

religion has posited this subject for millenia....

science really is discussing nothing new...

Religion has posited a series of "expansion" , "collapse" and further "expansion" and "collapse" and "expans..." etc. for a long long time before science ever did.

But I understand that will just upset many

The nights and days of Brahma are called Manvantara or the cycle of manifestation, ‘The Great Day’ that is a period of universal activity, which is preceded, and also followed by ‘Pralaya,’ a dark period, which to our finite minds seems as an eternity.

Universe after universe is like an interminable succession of wheels forever coming into view, forever rolling onwards, disappearing and reappearing; forever passing from being to non being, and again from non being to being. In short, the constant revolving of the wheel of life in one eternal cycle, according to fixed and immutable laws, is perhaps after all the sum and substance of the philosophy of Buddhism. And this eternal wheel has so to speak, six spokes representing six forms of existence.” ---- Mon. Williams, Buddhism, pp. 229, 122.

This view of an eternal oscillating universe is not only held by the Hindu and many from the scientific community, but it is also held by many, many Christians who see the six days of creation as six periods of universal activity and that those universal bodies were the generations of the universe that led to the body in which a mind capable of comprehending mind, had evolved.

Origen, who was well versed in the writings of Enoch the anointed one, was a Christian writer and teacher who lived between the years of 185 and 254 AD. Among his many works is the Hexapla, which is his interpretation of the Old Testament texts. Origen holds to a series of worlds following one upon the other,-- each world rising a step higher than the previous world, so that every later world brings to ripeness the seeds that were imbedded in the former, and itself then prepares the seed for the universe that will follow it.

 

[Mr Cheese]

The introduction of evidence isn’t new? Really?

are you deliberatly being stupid?

the concept of the big bang and big crunch is nothing new...

 

[Mr Cheese]

The nights and days of Brahma are called Manvantara or the cycle of manifestation, ‘The Great Day’ that is a period of universal activity, which is preceded, and also followed by ‘Pralaya,’ a dark period, which to our finite minds seems as an eternity.

Universe after universe is like an interminable succession of wheels forever coming into view, forever rolling onwards, disappearing and reappearing; forever passing from being to non being, and again from non being to being. In short, the constant revolving of the wheel of life in one eternal cycle, according to fixed and immutable laws, is perhaps after all the sum and substance of the philosophy of Buddhism. And this eternal wheel has so to speak, six spokes representing six forms of existence.” ---- Mon. Williams, Buddhism, pp. 229, 122.

This view of an eternal oscillating universe is not only held by the Hindu and many from the scientific community, but it is also held by many, many Christians who see the six days of creation as six periods of universal activity and that those universal bodies were the generations of the universe that led to the body in which a mind capable of comprehending mind, had evolved.

Origen, who was well versed in the writings of Enoch the anointed one, was a Christian writer and teacher who lived between the years of 185 and 254 AD. Among his many works is the Hexapla, which is his interpretation of the Old Testament texts. Origen holds to a series of worlds following one upon the other,-- each world rising a step higher than the previous world, so that every later world brings to ripeness the seeds that were imbedded in the former, and itself then prepares the seed for the universe that will follow it.

good stuff, thank you

 

[Falvlun]

At the moment, given what is known, the idea of cosmological breathing is completely up **** creek without a paddle.

Shows what I know. I had thought cyclical universe expansion and collapse was the theory du jour. Thanks for the information!

 

[S-word]

If I cut an apple up, a thousand times,
and then cut it more, a trillion times.
I still am unable to see an apple tree.

And if you were to go back 3 million years when the dinosaures ruled the earth, before grasses had evolved, you would not see an apple tree; O its ancestor would be there somewhere, but you would not recognise it in a million years.

 

[hey_amigo]

wow a inhale exhale universe.. now thats some deep philosophy

 

[Heneni]

How do we know that the expansion we see is not just a comsomological giant inhale and exhale? It seems to me that the whole theory is hinged on the fact that we found the universe expanding. However, so does my rib cage when I inhale, but eventually I exhale and it collapses. Can the size of the universe not mask the time factor of how long it expands?
I realize there is a cooling factor as well, can someone explain to me why the cooling aspect supports only an expanding universe, and not an inhale/exhale universe?

Any thoughts?
Thanks...

I like the analogy of breathing you have going here. The reason things 'seem' to have existed for billions of years, is because as space expanded so did time. You stretch out space you stretch out time. God could have stretched it all out in 7 days, but from our perspective its seems like billions of years. God can stretch space and therefore stretch time. To warp space you need to warp time. And vica versa. Since things on earth age with time, its only logical that we would think its all been here for billions of years. God made the universe old in seven days by stretching space and therefore time.

 

[S-word]

I like the analogy of breathing you have going here. The reason things 'seem' to have existed for billions of years, is because as space expanded so did time. You stretch out space you stretch out time. God could have stretched it all out in 7 days, but from our perspective its seems like billions of years. God can stretch space and therefore stretch time. To warp space you need to warp time. And vica versa. Since things on earth age with time, its only logical that we would think its all been here for billions of years. God made the universe old in seven days by stretching space and therefore time.

Well they reckon that the expansion is eccelerating, so the next seven days should more that the billions of years that the first seven days had become. Your reasoning is illogical heneni, interesting, but illogical.

 

[Heneni]

Well they reckon that the expansion is eccelerating, so the next seven days should more that the billions of years that the first seven days had become. Your reasoning is illogical heneni, interesting, but illogical.

The point is s-word, that if god made billions of years in 7 days he can collapse billions of years in 7 days. Revelation speaks about this thing happening when the skies are 'rolled up like a garment'.

Heneni

 

[themadhair]

are you deliberatly being stupid?

Think about it. Religions have, for centuries, made up all sorts of **** regarding the universe. Modern science is the first, and so far only, methodology that ever attempted to actually produce evidence for its fanciful claims.

If you don’t see the difference here, and the relevance of that difference, then maybe your question would be better directed at yourself.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Think about it. Religions have, for centuries, made up all sorts of **** regarding the universe. Modern science is the first, and so far only, methodology that ever attempted to actually produce evidence for its fanciful claims.

If you don’t see the difference here, and the relevance of that difference, then maybe your question would be better directed at yourself.

And yet, it comes to the same conclusion as religion, big bang and big crunch....

why?

there is nothing new under the sun, just different ways of stating the same thing, that really is all modern science is, in the main