Big Crunch or Big Rip?

[dipayankar]

Then probably we need to redefine infinity. Because if infinity exists, then it should have defined physical properties as well.

Apparently yes, but since nothing like that has been proved, it would be impossible to say. Every field that we know of is infinite, we do not know when the effect of anything becomes exactly zero.

[Mohan.C]

Then probably we need to redefine infinity. Because if infinity exists, then it should have defined physical properties as well.

No, we need not. Because infinity is when we don't know what exists. If we do it is not infinite. It itself cannot exist because if it does, it doesn't become infinity, it would be perceivable.

[Fredrick]

I stated this in my last post; "expanding 'voids' of 'attenuated' "Aether". I see the "Aether" as 'seamless', and 'infinite' in nature. If the "Aether" was not infinite, then we could say that the 'voids' are 'Big Rip's' in the fabric of space, or 'complete vacuum's'.

Complete vacuum is the same as saying 'nothing' exists in the 'voids'. Now we know this is impossible for there to be a complete vacuum, because of all the 'photons', etc..., that are whizzing through the Universe. If there were complete vacuum voids, then we would not see the Galaxies on the other side.

The main reason I do not believe in a 'complete vacuum' is; I can not see how a "Fundamental Building Block" can stay intact when it enters a void of this type. In my opinion "FBB's" state intact because of the constant interactions with the "Fundamental Substance" of the "Aether", and also the "FS" given up by other "FBB's". In a 'complete vacuum void', "FBB's" would become unstable, and disperse their "FS".

If "FBB's" dispersed their "FS" in the 'voids', then this would eliminate the idea of a 'complete vacuum', not to mention that we would not be able to see light from the other side of the 'void'.

Good delivery, Pop, nice way of saying to avoid the idea of the complete vacuum completely.

No, we need not define infinity. Because infinity is when we don't know what exists. If we do it is not infinite. It itself cannot exist because if it does, it doesn't become infinity, it would be perceivable.

Excellent remark, Mohan!

I guess, Dipayan, that puts me in that camp of no crunch and no big rip at the end. Just an unending story. No universal goal, except for us to decide what we do with our time right here and now (while considering the near future).

[dipayankar]

Fredrick, Any begining has an end. If the Universe began (Big Bang), there has to be a 'Big something' to end it...

Good delivery, Pop, nice way of saying to avoid the idea of the complete vacuum completely.


Excellent remark, Mohan!

I guess, Dipayan, that puts me in that camp of no crunch and no big rip at the end. Just an unending story. No universal goal, except for us to decide what we do with our time right here and now (while considering the near future).

[AntonioLao]

Or is there other means that the Universe will end in??

The universe could never end although it can gain or lose directional properties. Gaining all 8 directional properties cause the universe to become a singularity, a point. On the other hand, if spacetime points lose certain directional properties then they create spacetime volumes making the expansion.

[dipayankar]

And would gaining those properties make the Universe shrink?

The universe could never end although it can gain or lose directional properties. Gaining all 8 directional properties cause the universe to become a singularity, a point. On the other hand, if spacetime points lose certain directional properties then they create spacetime volumes making the expansion.

[AntonioLao]

The maximum allowable gain is 8 directional invariance properties. More than that the spacetime entity begins to gain excess mass. Moreover, these directions must be predominantly pointing inward into the past or the same as saying extreme gravitational attraction.

[dipayankar]

WHich theoritically still means that the Universe can shrink.

The maximum allowable gain is 8 directional invariance properties. More than that the spacetime entity begins to gain excess mass. Moreover, these directions must be predominantly pointing inward into the past or the same as saying extreme gravitational attraction.

[Max™]

The universe won't shrink.

It's doomed to unravel.

Does a bedsheet with holes in it ever fold back up neatly?

[dipayankar]

The balance of forcs on a bedsheet is zero. If a force makes the bedsheet to fold back then it will. A rubbersheet if stretched and then the stretching force starts weakening, then the sheet will start to shrink.

The universe won't shrink.

It's doomed to unravel.

Does a bedsheet with holes in it ever fold back up neatly?