[zeroca]

Originally Posted by force5

I just posted this stuff on another thread and I didn't know how to just point to it. This is my condensed version of how the expansion eventually ends and takes us back to pre-BB considerations.

Let’s think it over a little:
1.The universe/cosmos is all that exist.
- Nothing is all that doesn’t exist.
2. The universe/cosmos has always existed.
– Nothing hasn’t (ever) existed, i.e. it didn’t exist (always).
3. The universe/cosmos will not expand forever.
– But why, if it has the possibility of so? (If 3-D space can “spread” to all directions eternally and time “flows” eternally, just that’s enough to claim that the universe/cosmos can as well; does it expend really forever or not, that’s another matter but there’s no absolute contradiction that it will not)
4. The universe/cosmos will contract when there is no more baryonic matter to fuel the expansion.
- As I guessed you consider the existence of universe/cosmos as expansion, and “fading away” of universe/cosmos as contraction. If that’s so, I absolutely agree with you,
But is 3-D space experiencing contraction as well? Or does it remain “stable” as it is?
Is time striving to be interrupted when the universe/cosmos is striving to contract?
According to my theory the permanent existence of the universe/cosmos is consecutive succession of its arising and fading away (arising is attended with synchronous born of time and space and fading away – with synchronous die of time and space).
As for “The universe/cosmos will contract when there is no more baryonic matter to fuel the expansion”,
I consider a separation to be a basic impact for expansion: i.e. if expansion happens and it is directed from one “center” to all directions (I identify expansion with 3-D space), at once happens consolidation (from all sides to the same “center” and I identify it with gravity), so the whole space in universe is considered a sum of separate expansions, each of which begins from different centers and then are merging into one space. These separate expansions (each of them) are followed by separate consolidations to the same centers (and these consolidations are bodies) and this simultaneous presence of these two different processes (of consolidation and expansion) is just the main predicative, or characteristic feature of existence in whole.

[force5]

Hi all;

First, let me establish my position on open, closed or flat universe.

1. I completely rule out an open system because of finite energy.
2. I consider the definition of "flat" as one description of a closed system.
3. my position is that the cosmos can be viewed as a flat closed system.


Marketas Question;
------------------
Could you explain more why "Non-existence is necessary for this process to work." please?

Fredricks Question;
-------------------
Could you explain how nothing becomes invalid at the fundamental level within the "volume" of our existing universe?

Abreviated response;
--------------------
First of all, I think of non-existence as something like a pure vacuum, which IMHO, does not exist within the volume of the cosmos. I don't want to get hungup on simantics.

I consider all fundamental forces to be a result of a pulling as apposed to pushing process. In other words, all baryonic matter decays as a result of energy being sucked or pulled from the system by an external force. This external force is responsible for cosmic expansion and that thing we call entropy. This external force is acting at the very edge of the closed cosmos due to the probability that this is the end of existence where non-existence resides.

At some point in the future, there will be no more baronic matter left to extract energy from. At this point, all we will have left is DM and DE. The dark energy, aka, space will then begin the contraction process recombining with the dark matter centraly located (cosmic BH) to regenerate all the baryonic matter required to create the conditions necessary to start the next cycle.

I won't go into alot of detail now, but weather you agree or not, I hope it makes since. If not, I'll try to explain it a little better. There are a few more things I have not mentioned here that I might add later.

John A.

[Marketa]

I completely disagree with the statement that energy in our universe is finite. You perhaps think about energy in a certain moment, but unfortunately such energy doesn't exist, because energy arises from INTERACTIONS which take place in TIME. And nobody knows, how long our universe will "survive", so nobody knows how much energy it contains - whether finite or infinite.

[force5]

Originally Posted by Marketa

I completely disagree with the statement that energy in our universe is finite. You perhaps think about energy in a certain moment, but unfortunately such energy doesn't exist, because energy arises from INTERACTIONS which take place in TIME. And nobody knows, how long our universe will "survive", so nobody knows how much energy it contains - whether finite or infinite.

Hi Marketa;

May I assume that you prefer an open cosmos as opposed to flat or closed?
If this is the case, we should possibly address this issue first. All of my conclusions are based on accepted laws and theories in main stream science, with some postulates in those areas where the jury is still out.

If in fact energy "can" be created or destroyed, and I can't stand on the shoulders of those that came before us, this exercise we're going through will probably not make much difference in the long run. And I guess I can live with that.

Could you please explain exactly what types of "INTERACTIONS" would be possible without the use of existing energy?

I patiently look forward to your response.

Thanks...........John A.

[Marketa]

Any kind of interactions can be energy. Interactions itselves are energy. So they can't exist without energy - as well as energy can't exist without interactions. The more interactions, the more energy. I don't claim that there can be more interactions in certain space at certain time, obviously there can't be more interactions in certain space - black holes are maximum, but there can't be more interactions in certain time as well (there exist the smallest period of time, when something - one interaction - can happen) and that's why we see energy not created and not destroyed. But speaking about energy generaly - you can't count with our narrow 3D view. The more dimensions you use to your point of view the more energy you will see.

[force5]

Hi Marketa;

I'm trying to sort out exactly what we agree or disagree on.
When you refer to "inter-actions", I think about conservation of angular momentum. I tried you break your comments down so that I could be very specific about my response.

you:
Any kind of interactions can be energy.

Me:
Any kind of interactions "is" energy.

You:
Interactions itselves are energy.

Me:
Agree

You:
So they can't exist without energy - as well as energy can't exist without interactions.

Me:
Agree

You:
The more interactions, the more energy.

Me:
I'm not sure I understand exactly what you meant by this statement?

You:
black holes are maximum

Me:
I don't know? I'll take your word on this one.

You:
but there can't be more interactions in certain time as well (there exist the smallest period of time, when something - one interaction - can happen) and that's why we see energy not created and not destroyed.

Me:
I understand this to mean that you think energy "can" be created and destroyed and we just can't detect it? If that's the case, I disagree. I'll stay with the fundamental laws until prover otherwise.

You:
But speaking about energy generaly - you can't count with our narrow 3D view. The more dimensions you use to your point of view the more energy you will see.

Me:
I'm not sure exactly what you are stating as to my point of view? Please try to explain better. I don't recall making reference to String theories extra deminsions. My current thinking on the subject does not require extra D's for discussion or definition.

I hope we can identify our differences in thinking, so that we may concentrate on specific issues.

John A.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by force5

My position is that the cosmos can be viewed as a flat closed system. I don't want to get hungup on semantics.

Hi John,
I don't want to get hung up on semantics either, so that is a good start. I also believe the universe is a closed flat system, so that we have in common. That brings me back however to semantics because we appear to be talking about different meanings when we use the word nothing. Let me try first to see if I get your use/meaning right. You use the word nothing to describe a state in which absolutely nothing exists. If that is correct then we have another agreement. I do not consider nothing to be an ultimate state.

However, I do see that nothing is a fundamental part of an otherwise flat and closed system. According to me the system would be unable to exist/function if nothing wasn't part of the whole enchillada. Just like nothing in my wallet gets me out of bed in the morning to make some money, and just like the zeroes help enable the functioning of the binary system, the phenomenon of nothing must be one of the segments of our universe.

Do you agree with me that this is not a discussion about semantics but about the parts required for our universe to function?

[force5]

Originally Posted by Fredrick

Hi John,
I don't want to get hung up on semantics either, so that is a good start. I also believe the universe is a closed flat system, so that we have in common. That brings me back however to semantics because we appear to be talking about different meanings when we use the word nothing. Let me try first to see if I get your use/meaning right. You use the word nothing to describe a state in which absolutely nothing exists. If that is correct then we have another agreement. I do not consider nothing to be an ultimate state for our universe nor for the previous state of our universe.

However, I do see that nothing is a fundamental part of an otherwise flat and closed system. According to me the system would be unable to exist/function if nothing wasn't part of the whole enchillada. Just like nothing in my wallet gets me out of bed in the morning to make some money, just like the zeroes enable the binary system to express anything, the phenomenon of nothing is one of the segments of our universe. Quite passive, quite insignificant, but nevertheless fundamental.

Do you agree with me that this is not a discussion about semantics but about the parts required for our universe to function?

Hi Fredrick;

You have to do better than that if you want to talk me. It's impossible to have A decent discussion with someone that you completely agree with.

On the subject of "nothing", I think we are still in agreement. Try this on for size; We must have both existence and non-existence. The only restriction I put on "non-existence" is it cannot reside within the volume of our existing cosmos.

Think of something we can argue about. hahaha......John A.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by force5

You have to do better than that if you want to talk me. It's impossible to have A decent discussion with someone that you completely agree with.

Nice to read that we do not disagree - something that was not visible from the words you used because you said the opposite of what I would say. I guess choosing our words right is a never ending task. But please read on.

Originally Posted by force5

On the subject of "nothing", I think we are still in agreement. Try this on for size; We must have both existence and non-existence. The only restriction I put on "non-existence" is it cannot reside within the volume of our existing cosmos.

As long as you mean with non-existence that what not exists in our materialized universe than there isn't much for me to comment on. I prefer not to dwell on spiritual options in a otherwise scientific forum, so we have agreement.

Originally Posted by force5

Think of something we can argue about. hahaha......John A.

There are so many people in this world who all have their own opinions, ideas, and perspectives, and I am no exception to this either, so when there is not much disagreement happening, I sit still for a second and cherish the moment and just feel happy!

But okay, enough holism, of course there is something you said about nothing that bit me gently, and that is that in my idea nothing is the cause our universe came into existence. The unmaterialized pre-universe was an existing condition, but in this condition there was no consciousness first about nothing. As soon as nothing became an option our universe started to appear. In this theory, materialization occurred because the phenomenon of nothing became the new part in the set of options of the previous state of our universe.

The weakness of the theory is that it does require some consciousness to have existed prior to materialization, but fortunate for me there is no exclusive evidence of the opposite either.

So, nothing is not just nothing for me. It is the enabler of our universe. It had nothing to add, and that is exactly what did the trick. Unfortunatly for your theory, if our universe started to materialize because of an added nothing then the binding piece your theory requires (in that our universe goes back/comes full circle) would not be possible. If one side lets go for the wrong reasons (in this case for no reason at all), there is no automatic get together again.

[Marketa]

you:
I'm not sure I understand exactly what you meant by this statement: The more interactions, the more energy.

Me:
I thought this point is quite clear if interactions ARE energy, then 2 interactions represent more energy then only one of them.

You:
I understand this to mean that you think evergy "can" be created and destroyed and we just can't detect it? If that's the case, I disagree. I'll stay with the fundamental laws until proven otherwise.

Me:
Why do you believe these "laws"? They are just created by people to simplify things - e.g. 124/62 can be represented by 2, which is simplier and ALSO correct; as for creating energy you can see it everywhere around you - if you move your hand, energy that represents it is in one place "destroyed" and in another "created". Since at one moment only one change (interaction)can happen in cerain area (e.g. very quick movement - c, or another type of interaction slowlier movement "in one direction" because the object is moving into few "different directions") or in one certain place only one change can happen in a period of time, you can't see change of the energy (or creating or destroying it). You could say that the amount of created and destroyed energy is the same but I think you can't say that the energy is not created and destroyed at all. This is like derivation in functions in mathematics (I'm not sure about the English expressions, but I hope you'll understand me).

You: I'm not sure exactly what you are stating as to my point of view? Please, explain it better.

Me: This is simple. You can see things happening in time, but you can't see this time as a picture (in which "are happened" all those changes), because you live inside it. If you could see 3D space + time, you would certainly see more energy.