Hi, yet again DrJoe Pesce,
Thanks once more for your last great reply.
I was going to ask you what your favourite or preferred universe theory was, but in your last reply to me you said;
"In the far distant future, expansion will have an affect even on the smallest scales, and atomic nuclei, for example, will be pulled apart by the expansion."
So, can I assume you favour the 'big rip'?
I was in a thread trying to convince someone there wasn't going to be a heat death. I'll paste my post here and I'd like your opinion please;
https://forums.space.com/threads/scientist-calculates-the-sad-lonely-end-of-the-universe.33019/ Post 24;
"The observation of the accelerating expansion of the universe is explained with dark energy. We don't know what dark energy is or its full properties. Your support for the end of the universe is dependent on something we know nothing about or even if it exists at all. Don't you think that something as important as the end needs something a bit more concrete than an unknown 'dark energy'?
Anyway, what do you mean by 'the universe'?
The dictionary definition of 'universe' is "everything that there is". You, this web sites articles and most top scientists seem to keep referring to the big bang and the universe as one and the same thing. For example, statements like - "The
universe started with the
big bang". It is a huge assumption that the contents of the big bang are 'everything that is' ie the universe. There's absolutely no evidence to support this, I find it completely unscientific.
So until proven otherwise, I think it's equally good (no, better) to assume the universe is infinite and contains infinite 'stuff'. Meaning the contents of the Big bang is
not 'everything that is' ie the universe. With this in mind, the contents of the big bang are expanding into the stuff of rest of 'The Infinite', as I like to call it. When it hits this 'stuff', the 2nd law will not be able to expand the contents of our big bang anymore. So no heat death!
Everything that exists, exists in a space. The big bang may have created space (space itself being a 'something' eg quantum foam etc), but at the same time, it must have existed in a space, even if just a void or geometric space. So, if you want to stick with the idea that the contents of the big bang is also the universe, you are assuming that the rest of space that the big bang existed in is infinite and void, in order to allow indefinite expansion and heat death. A bit absurd in my opinion.
Me from last post - "For something to have a beginning, it must be a part of a greater whole or from something pre-existing, otherwise, it's just another something from nothing theory." Again with this proposition, the contents of our big bang are expanding into the greater whole, and so can't expand forever - no heat death.
Altogether, with unknown dark energy, and the possibility that the contents of the big bang are expanding into a 'greater whole' or 'The Infinite', don't you think it's a bit unsafe to predict the end, (heat death) of 'everything that there is' just yet?
"
To summarise;
Matter/energy can't be created or destroyed, so no beginning or end, something has always existed, including before our big bang. All theories about universes must have a cyclic or recycling property to them. So, we are partway through the current cycle of a big bang among, IMO, an infinite number other big bangs.
Existence is eternal. The proof is we are here, surrounded by matter and order, because no process has ever destroyed it. Including black holes or heat deaths in previous big bang contents. Order even survived coming through our Big Bang. Order can't be created or destroyed. This all goes to show that one day all that went into black holes will come out again, both matter and order.
Everything that exists, exists in a space, including the contents of the Big bang IMO. The big bang may have created its own space (space itself being a 'something' eg quantum foam etc), but why can't this created space also exist
in a space at the same time?
Thank you