Light,
Well no, I don't think so. If you do discover something that STARTED the ball rolling that wil then raises the question of what STARTED the starter. .
That was kinda the point I was making..
The outcome from that is that something of an infinite nature MUST exist otherwise nothing could have ever started.
.
This same argument used in favour of a pantheistic god. All you have to do is add sentience to infinite and you have it…
With pantheism there is no god external to the universe who has created it. The universe is infinite and what we have now, as the known material universe, has arisen out of infiniteness, but in order for something to start, or for something dynamic to arise from something static sentience or intelligence is required.
God in this sense is the universe; and the universe is sentient; man is part of the universe and part of that same sentience; (or you may say consciousness); This sentient universe is called the great self and it is from here that man can say that the self in me is the same as the self of god, or come to the realisation god and I are one.
Theory: The singularity at the beginning of time exploded due to internal stress caused by resonance frequencies.
Problems with that theory in regard to infinite universe;
1.For a force (stress) to act on a mass, time is a necessary factor; therefore to say that stresses caused an explosion at the beginning of time would be oxymoronic ; time would have had to have started before the stresses; the question remains what started time.
2. Internal stresses and resonant frequencies are caused by forces acting upon or within objects; basically the particles are being held together in an unnatural state and their tendency is to want to break apart, this is the cause of stresses. In this model you do not have a singularity, you have a dynamic universe as the one we have now, the only difference being it is far more compact.. The fact that the forces are internal to the (supposed) singularity does not matter, as whether they are internal or external to the singularity they are still internal to the universe.
3. The problem being, where you have a dynamic universe i.e. with forces acting, you do not have an infinite universe – it is impossible for something held in this state to be called infinite.
To be infinite a universe it must be stable and static. But then you still have the question of how it became dynamic in the first place
4. This can be overcome by saying the universe is infinitely dynamic. But then why start at the singularity why not start at the multiplicity that must have proceeded it.. why not start from 100,000 years ago. You see in the case of an infinitely dynamic universe, any one point is no more relevant than any other. It is just tantamount to saying I don’t know.
Since we have nothing to indicate the universe hasn't always existed then the simple assumption for now should be that it is infinite
.
Again the simplest assumption is we don’t know…. Infinite universes are not simple assumption or concepts and have ramifications. As stated above. They often need sentience to make them work and then you are back to what created the sentience etc etc.
Why?
If energy is "eternal" then it might have had no beginning - and will have no end.
.
All we can really say on energy is that so far we have not found anything in the universe which destroys it…. But then we have only explored about 1 millionth of the universe and are still discovering new things in our solar system and indeed our planet. So we can not really say with much certainty that energy is eternal…. although it may well be??
