Is The Universe Eternal or Not?

[EmptyForceOfChi]

A position relative to something else.

Contrary to popular understanding, outer space is not completely empty (i.e. a perfect vacuum) but contains a low density of particles, predominantly hydrogen plasma, as well as electromagnetic radiation, dark matter and dark energy. [wikipedia]

Think about it this way, some planets and suns give off powerful radio signals that can be detected almost anywhere in space. If space is nothingness, how could we detect radio signals there? For that matter, is there somewhere in space where you can't see stars? If you can see stars from there, there must be at least photons travelling through.

are you joking or serious?, where do those particles reside? plasma, hydrogen etc etc what do hydrogen particles float around in, what does oxygen float around in?, . dark matter and dark energy?. why make up a name for empty space to try and say it has a mass of sorts because its energy, it is just empty space that is a framework for existence. do you believe in the dimension of space?.


what is the dimension of space?.

peace.

 

[Enmos]

are you joking or serious?, where do those particles reside? plasma, hydrogen etc etc what do hydrogen particles float around in, what does oxygen float around in?, . dark matter and dark energy?. why make up a name for empty space to try and say it has a mass of sorts because its energy, it is just empty space that is a framework for existence. do you believe in the dimension of space?.


what is the dimension of space?.

peace.

A portion of space can theoretical be empty, but outer space isn't.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

There is only one thing that seems certain - there is or must have been something that had an infinite past. Since the future has not yet occurred then it would be premature to say anything about that direction.

The proof is simple - if there was a point somewhere in the past where nothing existed then there could never have been a cause for anything to follow and we would not be here.

In this light the actuality of infinity is a necessity.

Thanks for your comments Cris!

Can there be an eternal "finite" Something? Why must it be infinite.

Thanks

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Entropy: A much maligned and misunderstood concept. The correct definition is very specific and constrained to a closed system. I.e. something that has specific boundaries. Anything infinite by definition is something specifically without boundaries so the concept of entropy cannot be applied to the universe.

Please forgive my ignorance on this topic, but our Sun is still predicted to eventually burn out, correct? And entropy is still, I think, occurring in what you are calling an open system. And in fact it is occurring on an immense scale almost everywhere we look in the universe. So how is Entropy not working even in this apparently open system of the universe?

What exists in the universe that can balance out the affects of entropy or reverse it or whatever?

I am not trying to be difficult. I am just trying to understand these things better. Sorry, I am still stuck in my own brain on this.

I would appreciate your help!

Thank You!

 

[Cris]

Seti,

Can there be an eternal "finite" Something? Why must it be infinite.

I'm referring to infinite time not infinite size. In this case "eternal" and "infinite time" are synonymous.

However, if there is nothing else but the universe then what would it mean to talk of a finite universe since that would imply a boundary and a boundary defines an end of one thing and a start of something else. But if there is no something else because the universe is everything then doesn't that mean such a universe must be infinite in size?

 

[Cris]

Seti,

Please forgive my ignorance on this topic, but our Sun is still predicted to eventually burn out, correct? And entropy is still, I think, occurring in what you are calling an open system. And in fact it is occurring on an immense scale almost everywhere we look in the universe. So how is Entropy not working even in this apparently open system of the universe?

What does immense mean relative to infinity?

The concept of an entropic universe is closely tied to the belief that big bang theory is true. But for BB to be true 98% of the universe must consist of dark matter and energy. No such things have been discovered and with a need for 98% of everything to be in this form you'd think it would have been detected. Without these imaginary components the math for an expanding gravity model of a universe simply does not work. Add to that the fact that BB predicts the universe is only 15B years old but that structures far older than that have been detected. So what we have is a cosmology theory supported by massive funding that is fundamentally broken and fails in its simplest predictions.

Now take a different approach and say the universe is not controlled by gravity as required by BB but say by electromagnetism for example and then we start to see possibilities for an infinite dynamic universe with stars dying out and new ones being formed for eternity.

A heat death entropic universe depends entirely on the acceptance of a broken BB theory.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Seti,

I'm referring to infinite time not infinite size. In this case "eternal" and "infinite time" are synonymous.

However, if there is nothing else but the universe then what would it mean to talk of a finite universe since that would imply a boundary and a boundary defines an end of one thing and a start of something else. But if there is no something else because the universe is everything then doesn't that mean such a universe must be infinite in size?

Could not the universe be an infinite void without boundaries that contains within it an energy/matter physical existence that does have real but possibly expanding boundaries? I know this is still BB thinking, right?

I'm trying to understand man, but it might take a while.

Thanks

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Seti,

What does immense mean relative to infinity?

The concept of an entropic universe is closely tied to the belief that big bang theory is true. But for BB to be true 98% of the universe must consist of dark matter and energy. No such things have been discovered and with a need for 98% of everything to be in this form you'd think it would have been detected. Without these imaginary components the math for an expanding gravity model of a universe simply does not work. Add to that the fact that BB predicts the universe is only 15B years old but that structures far older than that have been detected. So what we have is a cosmology theory supported by massive funding that is fundamentally broken and fails in its simplest predictions.

Now take a different approach and say the universe is not controlled by gravity as required by BB but say by electromagnetism for example and then we start to see possibilities for an infinite dynamic universe with stars dying out and new ones being formed for eternity.

A heat death entropic universe depends entirely on the acceptance of a broken BB theory.

I am linking the heat death entropic universe concept to the things we can see and prove, namely our own Sun and all of the Stars that we can see. I am not sure why it has to be linked to the BB theory at all really, at least so far, but then I am trying to learn and expand my view.

Thanks again for your help!

I guess I would possibly expect that there would have to be some kind of perfect balance of energy/matter if what you say is true, for an eternal length of time. That is one of the things I am trying to understand more clearly. And it would have to be able to somehow be both unstable and stable at the same time and be able to equalize or balance over great distances through space. It would have to be able to self-compensate constantly and perfectly for all eternity. It would have to be an absolutely perfect energy/matter system. Does any of this make any sense?

Sorry if I am talking nonsense!

Thanks!

 

[Cris]

Seti,

I guess I would possibly expect that there would have to be some kind of perfect balance of energy/matter if what you say is true, for an eternal length of time. That is one of the things I am trying to understand more clearly. And it would have to be able to somehow be both unstable and stable at the same time and be able to equalize or balance over great distances through space. It would have to be able to self-compensate constantly and perfectly for all eternity. It would have to be an absolutely perfect energy/matter system. Does any of this make any sense?

Perhaps, but if it is infinite in size, in which case there could be vast areas that are quite dead and others that are very dynamic.

Note that not everything is entropic. The usual perspective is of increasing disorder over time, but a complex snowflake forms from disorder and life itself grows in complexity from simplicity.

As for balance - hmm - the idea of any action having an equal and opposite reaction comes to mind.

If plasma cosmology is true then the universe is really very active and not in a state of decay as BB proponents would have us believe.

 

[Grantywanty]

If the universe was not eternal it would have finished a long time ago.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Seti,

Perhaps, but if it is infinite in size, in which case there could be vast areas that are quite dead and others that are very dynamic.

That might be expected as well but for this energy/matter system to be eternal it would seem that it would have to be able to compensate or transfer energy/matter actions and reactions over distances of millions of light-years through empty space, or nothing, or whatever it is, perfectly for all eternity. This seems like a lot to expect from a mindless, unguided system, but perhaps it is so anyway.

Note that not everything is entropic. The usual perspective is of increasing disorder over time, but a complex snowflake forms from disorder and life itself grows in complexity from simplicity.

I guess I am just really concentrating on the entropic idea that anything that is hot will eventually cool which is what that snowflake you mentioned illustrates. Would it not take an additional input of energy, of some kind, from somewhere, to melt that snowflake or to make our Sun ever burn again once it has burned out? Complexity or simplicity may not really matter in this case. But, what do you think?

As for balance - hmm - the idea of any action having an equal and opposite reaction comes to mind.

Yes, but we are talking about the need for an action in one location of the universe to have an equal and opposite reaction in another place in the universe that is perhaps many light-years away from it. Perhaps that is possible though.

If plasma cosmology is true then the universe is really very active and not in a state of decay as BB proponents would have us believe.

I will have to check into that one.

I fully realize that I do not know much about this topic. I am sure you have studied this stuff more than I have, but I have to start with what I can understand.

Thanks Again!