Is The Universe Eternal or Not?

SetiAlpha6

SetiAlpha6

Come Let Us Reason Together
Valued Senior Member
Question: According to science is the universe eternal or possibly created from something else?

We have one law of science that states that energy/matter cannot either be created or destroyed. This would possibly make one think that the universe is eternal, right? So in this case there would be no need for a creator, or a beginning point of the universe in time, because there simply never was such a beginning point.

But there is another law, the law of entropy, which basically states, or indicates, that our own sun and indeed all of the other stars in this entire universe of ours are all slowly burning themselves out over millions of years, and will eventually burn themselves completely out. The universe then should eventually suffer a total heat death and all of the lights in the universe should, in time, go completely out.

But this law poses a problem for the “universe is eternal theory” because if the universe is eternal then it should have suffered this heat death an eternity ago. But the universe has not yet gone out, at least according to the last time I looked out the window, it hasn’t. So this law in combination with that still brilliantly burning ball up in the sky, that I can see every day, would seem to indicate that the universe is not eternal, right?

I know. I am a little weird for trying to figure this thing out but then I have always been a little weird, thank you very much!

Any ideas?
 
One idea that would get round this is the Bang-Crunch cycle - the Universe expands to a point and then starts contracting to another "bang" and so forth.

However, another answer, however unsatisfactory, is that we just don't have sufficient knowledge to be able to tell what will happen or to answer your question.

:D
 
Sarkus said:
One idea that would get round this is the Bang-Crunch cycle - the Universe expands to a point and then starts contracting to another "bang" and so forth.

However, another answer, however unsatisfactory, is that we just don't have sufficient knowledge to be able to tell what will happen or to answer your question.

:D
Click to expand...


The "Bang Crunch cycle" seems like it could never work, to me, for the same reasons that a perpetual motion machine could never function for an eternity without an external energy source of some kind. And also the last thing I knew, the current thought was that the rate of expansion of the universe is actually accelerating not decelerating.

Thanks for your thoughts!

Any other ideas?
 
Question: According to science is the universe eternal or possibly created from something else?
Click to expand...

That statement makes no sense because you are asking a question that you say science has already answered.
 
cosmictraveler said:
That statement makes no sense because you are asking a question that you say science has already answered.
Click to expand...

I am just trying to understand this stuff. Apparently Sarkus understood what I was saying.

How might you phrase this question better, then?

Please show me how to improve my thinking, cosmic.

Thanks
 
Just don't say that science has answered something then ask something about what that which was answered.

A good way to ask your question would be just ask " Is the universe eternal or isn't it. Don't make a statement afterwards claiming that science has answered it and what is it that science answered.
 
cosmictraveler said:
Just don't say that science has answered something then ask something about what that which was answered.

A good way to ask your question would be just ask " Is the universe eternal or isn't it. Don't make a statement afterwards claiming that science has answered it and what is it that science answered.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the clarification, cosmic.

Do you have any answers regarding this topic, however poorly it is stated?

Thanks.
 
Sarkus said:
One idea that would get round this is the Bang-Crunch cycle - the Universe expands to a point and then starts contracting to another "bang" and so forth.

However, another answer, however unsatisfactory, is that we just don't have sufficient knowledge to be able to tell what will happen or to answer your question.

:D
Click to expand...

The latest issue (Oct) of "Astronomy" magazine has a good arcticle on the latest developments on the big bang theory.
Astronomers can trace the chronological movement from the fraction of a second after the big bang and how the earliest lightest elements were created and later more complex ones..BUT, prior to that fraction of a second they simply don't have the answers yet.
Perhaps the universe has undergone numerous cycles of expansion/contraction.
 
SetiAlpha6 said:
The "Bang Crunch cycle" seems like it could never work, to me, for the same reasons that a perpetual motion machine could never function for an eternity without an external energy source of some kind. And also the last thing I knew, the current thought was that the rate of expansion of the universe is actually accelerating not decelerating.

Thanks for your thoughts!

Any other ideas?
Click to expand...

You are forgetting that ALL the energy in the universe is retained for the simple reason that there is nothing else than the universe.
 
SetiAlpha6 said:
VERY NICE SPIDEY!!!

But please tell me how you know that the universe had no beginning.

I do not have an answer to this, do you?

Let me know what you think.
Click to expand...

Do you agree there can't be a 'before time' ?
If you do, isn't it obvious the universe had no beginning ?
 
That 'freezing' of the universe is just another state of the matter, so the universe as we know it ceases to exist, but no the matter, matter is there but in another state that is unknown to us, but is there, so the universe we can see is not eternal, but matter and energy are eternal, they have been changing of states forever and will never end. So the universe has been exploding, expanding and 'freezing' always, and will always be so.
 
SetiAlpha6 said:
Question: According to science is the universe eternal or possibly created from something else?

We have one law of science that states that energy/matter cannot either be created or destroyed. This would possibly make one think that the universe is eternal, right? So in this case there would be no need for a creator, or a beginning point of the universe in time, because there simply never was such a beginning point.

But there is another law, the law of entropy, which basically states, or indicates, that our own sun and indeed all of the other stars in this entire universe of ours are all slowly burning themselves out over millions of years, and will eventually burn themselves completely out. The universe then should eventually suffer a total heat death and all of the lights in the universe should, in time, go completely out.

But this law poses a problem for the “universe is eternal theory” because if the universe is eternal then it should have suffered this heat death an eternity ago. But the universe has not yet gone out, at least according to the last time I looked out the window, it hasn’t. So this law in combination with that still brilliantly burning ball up in the sky, that I can see every day, would seem to indicate that the universe is not eternal, right?

I know. I am a little weird for trying to figure this thing out but then I have always been a little weird, thank you very much!

Any ideas?
Click to expand...


the universe in my opinion is eternal, because if something created the universe that creator is also a part of the universe. because universe means everything in existence. creation leads to an endless cycle. because you cannot create something from absolute nothing. and even an eternal cycle of creation is the universe which would also be eternal.


you mention the death of stars and the burning out, but what about the birth of stars?. its not like stars just die, stars are also born just as often as stars die. so aslong as more stars are born the universe will have light. the 2 logics contradict each other, and ofcourse cannot co-exist in truth.

peace.
 
Enmos said:
You are forgetting that ALL the energy in the universe is retained for the simple reason that there is nothing else than the universe.
Click to expand...


Thanks for your comments. I understand your point.

But still, how is all of the energy / matter in the entire universe, to the very last atom, ever brought back to one single place in space even once. This natural process, if it exists, would have to be absolutely perfect every single time or the next Bang would be just a tiny bit smaller and the next a tiny bit smaller still until it would eventually cease to occur. And so again this cycle should have ceased an eternity ago, right? But it has not. This still would seem to indicate to my weird brain that the universe might not be eternal.

Can any such similar natural process be recreated on a very small scale with an explosion in a vacuum? I am guessing not. Has anyone ever witnessed, in a lab or otherwise, any explosion ever reverse itself in the history of mankind? Please tell me if I am wrong!

What do you think?
 
SetiAlpha6 said:
VERY NICE SPIDEY!!!

But please tell me how you know that the universe had no beginning.

I do not have an answer to this, do you?

Let me know what you think.
Click to expand...

I think it had a beginning and it's eternal, since the beginning was also the beginning of time.
 
as far as current scientific laws go, it would be impossible to compress that amount of matter/energy into a small amount of space.

but anyway, putting energy and matter aside for just a second, lets talk about that which exists and does not have physical energy. empty space exists yet it has 0 energy/mass, according to science something that has absolute 0 mass does not exist. but 99% of the universe (around that figure) is made up of empty space without any energy source to examine.

how could something which doesent consist of energy or mass be created?. in my opinion that is impossible. when people speak of a vacuume that is not proven in the slightest and it explains nothing of empty space. alot of the time people avoid speaking about empty space, and even come up with very lame terms such as "no space is empty, every part of space contains atoms/particals/energy". the key word in that flawed half baked idea is "contains" so what exactly is containing this particle if not complete empty space?.


take a single cubic meter of space right infront of your face, ofcourse it contains millions of particles and various sources of energy. but what seperates those particles and lays between each seperate particle?. it is nothing but emptyness. yet that empty space exists so it must be something. it is a dimension, but we are always told that everything has some mass or energy to it in order to exist. which is not true when speaking of the empty dimension of space obviously.


so how could emptyness ever be created by something?. what is there to even create?.


peace.


peace.
 
cosmictraveler said:
What begins ends and what ends begins.
Click to expand...

how can energy begin?, if we follow the trail of your theory, it would lead us eventualy to the conclusion that something came from nothing. which is impossible. and if you would like to say it is a cycle then that cycle is eternal. which just leads to the same conclusion that the universe is eternal, cycle or not.


peace.
 
Enmos said:
Do you agree there can't be a 'before time' ?
If you do, isn't it obvious the universe had no beginning ?
Click to expand...


I do not know.

As far as I know, for every second of time there should always be a previous second of time before it in perpetuity, eternally, no matter what actually happens, or takes place, during that second of time. Why can there not be a second of time, one second before the universe was created, if it was? Just asking?

Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top