Big Bang

[ThinkingSapien]

Those that accept the Big Bang, that is, the scientist, do they have time the same all over the universe?

Is time the same here as it is on the other sides of the universe?

Time doesn’t progress at the same rate in low earth orbit as it does here on the ground. So no, it isn’t the same all throughout the universe. The faster your velocity and the stronger the gravitational field in which you find yourself the slower time will progress. So slightly different systems of time are used depending on what you are measuring.

 

[Jim_Baur]

ThinkingSapien

To what degree does that effect dating the universe?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Time doesn’t progress at the same rate in low earth orbit as it does here on the ground. So no, it isn’t the same all throughout the universe. The faster your velocity and the stronger the gravitational field in which you find yourself the slower time will progress. So slightly different systems of time are used depending on what you are measuring.

I wonder then:

Assuming the universe begins to constrict and collapse back in on itself, as it’s constricting it will essentially develop a negative velocity relative to it’s current velocity. Since the movement of time is relative to gravity and velocity, does that mean that time will essentially begin to move backwards? Further, if “time” does begin to move backwards, would the inhabitants of the universe notice?

I know that this is not what would actually happen, but it’s something fun to think about ^^

 

[bzkoss236]

Most scientists think the Big Bang came from a Big Crunch from a previous Universe that collapsed upon itself with such gravity that it’s size approached nothingness. And that eventually our Universe will stop expanding, reverse and do the same.

From what I understand, current calculations show that the universe is still accelerating outward, and showing no signs of stopping. And the study of entropy has also shown that it is unlikely that there was anything before the big bang. Again, this is just from what I’ve heard/read.

 

[Proceedings]

A Big Crunch " is the stuff of science fiction, no evidence for that at all.

No evidence could survive in that scenario, all matter from the previous Universe would be in the current.

Besides, that would imply that the universe or universes created themselves. But this is an implication that has no evidence at all.

The theory is a cyclic recreation, and seems more logical than everything coming from nothing.

Thomas Aquinas demonstrated that even an eternal universe or universes must have a Creating First Cause, itself Uncaused and Unchangeable. This is a philosophical demonstration but it represents the only reasonable conclusion. No one can give a reasonable explanation of how a limited, material universe or universes could just happen " to be, " that it could explain its own existence for starters. Again, some accept it and some do not.

The “Creating First Cause” is the theory is the previous collapsing universe.

But the Catholic Church has defined the truth that God created the universe, ex nihilo, before which there was no universe. That God created the universe and all its properties, space, time, matter, waves, energies, etc.

Nothing says that God didn’t create a previous or many previous universes.

 

[JDaniel]

The link in my last post, and a little Googling.

Pro:

Sorry; I’m not going to read all of that to try to find the referent to: “most scientists today think the Biog Bang is the result of a big crunch.” Where is that said, and on what basis?

You see, I don’t believe that is true. I think there are more atheistic scientists that believe that our present universe comes about from a multiverse, rather than from an oscillating universe theory.

If you think I am wrong, point out the whereabouts of you referent.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

That page say that most scientist accept Big Bang Theory, but the Big Crunch conclusion is not being attributed to most scientist.

Thank you, TS.

God bless,
jd

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Most scientists think the Big Bang came from a Big Crunch from a previous Universe that collapsed upon itself with such gravity that it’s size approached nothingness. And that eventually our Universe will stop expanding, reverse and do the same.

Actually, they used to think this was one of the two main options - and because physicists like symmetry, used to favor it slightly in some ways - but no longer. There is currently no evidence that a big crunch will or could occur (though there is not enough evidence to say that it cannot either, only that nothing suggests that it will or can).

The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate due to dark energy. While it is possible (because frankly, we know next to nothing about dark energy) that this will stop and reverse eventually, there is no evidence that it will at this time. Heat death seems more likely from what we’ve observed.

Even if heat death is our destiny, as seems likely, this does not necessarily mean that there have been no other universes before us that started with a different big bang and had a big crunch. Knowing for sure whether this was possible would require us to know a lot more about dark energy than we do though.

The likelihood of a heat death end also makes it seem unlikely that there has been an infinite number of universes before us. Not impossible, again, we don’t know much about dark energy, but it would be hard to say that the universe took an infinite number of configurations and then suddenly took one more that kills it. There would be the question “why didn’t it take the death configuration earlier?” (and also what that would mean - how could you tell a difference between taking an infinite number of incarnations and dying, and taking a different infinite number of incarnations and dying? - but that sort of thing may be able to be resolved.)

In short, big crunch, as pleasingly symmetrical as it is, no longer seems likely.

I’ve always wondered if the infinite-bang-crunch-cycles view of the universe was just an unwillingness to get rid of the old steady state theories. Killing those off really messed with a lot of scientists’ philosophies, which is part of why the big bang received so much opposition at first. This sort of cycle thing would go a reasonably way to re-stabilizing those philosophies - but it just doesn’t seem to be working.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

The “Creating First Cause” is the theory is the previous collapsing universe.

You’re only looking at one level of it. What caused that cause, or the cause before that, or the cause before that, ad infinitum. At some point it is absolutely necessary that all things were set in motion, otherwise none of this would exist. This necessitates a Being who had not only the capacity, but the means to set all this in motion; that being is God.

 

[JDaniel]

Those that accept the Big Bang, that is, the scientist, do they have time the same all over the universe?

Is time the same here as it is on the other sides of the universe?

If time is relative, how does that fit in with the 15,000,000,000 years from the Big Bang?

THANKS!!!

Jim:

Time is the same whether here or there. If we could get to the other side of the universe in an instant, time would only have changed a second or two. Relativity has to do with the stretching that is apparent to the human mind as two distant objects move away from each other, or toward each other, at a huge speeds, such as at the speed of light.

Time is relative to motion. In fact, Time is a correlate of motion.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

But “before” is a mere human construct used to describe a moment in time. It has no meaning to God… I agree that God created all things in this reality, but this reality is not necessarily limited to a single universe.

Prodigl:

This is true. There isn’t really any way to know.

Actually, I conceive of “before” as part of the dichotomy of “before and after,” that have precisely to do with motion and mobile being(s). Don’t you?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I wonder then:

Assuming the universe begins to constrict and collapse back in on itself, as it’s constricting it will essentially develop a negative velocity relative to it’s current velocity. Since the movement of time is relative to gravity and velocity, does that mean that time will essentially begin to move backwards? Further, if “time” does begin to move backwards, would the inhabitants of the universe notice?

Prodigl:

Sure! We’d get smaller and younger!

God bless,
jd

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Prodigl:

This is true. There isn’t really any way to know.

Actually, I conceive of “before” as part of the dichotomy of “before and after,” that have precisely to do with motion and mobile being(s). Don’t you?

God bless,
jd

I do as well, but what I’m saying is that the only reason we have a concept of “before and after” is because of the temporal element of our reality. From what we know, God’s perception does not really include time, and as such he has no need for concepts like “before and after”

When we say that God created nothing before our universe, “before” is a meaningless modifier because it is referencing a being who has no conception of it. What is “before” to us is simultaneous to God. So technically, following this logic, it is impossible for God to have create a universe “Before” ours, but that doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a universe which existed “before” ours within our concept of time.

Prodigl:

Sure! We’d get smaller and younger!

God bless,
jd

So, how about the second part. Do you think we’d notice?

 

[JDaniel]

The “Creating First Cause” is the theory is the previous collapsing universe.

Pro:

Who holds that view? (I’ve never heard of it. )

Nothing says that God didn’t create a previous or many previous universes.

This, however, is true.

God bless,
jd

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Assuming the universe begins to constrict and collapse back in on itself,

At present that doesn’t seem to be a popular idea. But let’s roll with it for a moment

as it’s constricting it will essentially develop a negative velocity relative to it’s current velocity. Since the movement of time is relative to gravity and velocity, does that mean that time will essentially begin to move backwards?

I doubt it. There’s some hypothesis about a positron being an electron that is moving backwards in time but beyond that I don’t know of anything that would predict time going backwards.

I know that this is not what would actually happen, but it’s something fun to think about ^^

Hmmm…so memories would essential become predictions of what would happen, but when it did happen one would no longer have memories of it. You would remember a book until you unread it and the book went back to be unpublished. People would originate in graves or on sunken ships in oceans and other “lethal” places and live their lives growing younger until unborn. Sounds like a rather bizarre world.

 

[tskrobacz]

In a theological sense the Big Bang represents the moment Spirit fused with matter (the true Christ moment) or the moment when Spirit materialized. It took billions of years for our state of consciousness to reach the level where Jesus came to affirm that truth for us and we could grasp it’s truth and meaning.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

ThinkingSapien

To what degree does that effect dating the universe?

It doesn’t. Dating of the universe is largely based on measuring the distance of observable objects. And it results in a lower limit on the age of the universe. It’s possible the universe is older.

What does distance have to do with time? Well the object’s photons (or other form of electromagnetic radiation) are what we observe. And the upper limit on the speed of light is known. If an object can be seen then there must have been enough passage of time for that object’s photons to travel from the object to our observation equipment.

 

[pig]

At present that doesn’t seem to be a popular idea. But let’s roll with it for a moment

I doubt it. There’s some hypothesis about a positron being an electron that is moving backwards in time but beyond that I don’t know of anything that would predict time going backwards.

Hmmm…so memories would essential become predictions of what would happen, but when it did happen one would no longer have memories of it. You would remember a book until you unread it and the book went back to be unpublished. People would originate in graves or on sunken ships in oceans and other “lethal” places and live their lives growing younger until unborn. Sounds like a rather bizarre world.

If time is motion, and motion can go forwards and backwards. Then when motion stops time stands still. If motion is a three-dimensional/multidimensional thing then anti-motion is a non-dimensional thing. If motion is time traveling forwards, then motions stopping is time standing still, and material becoming non-dimensional is time travelling backwards…

 

[edwest2]

Most scientists think the Big Bang came from a Big Crunch from a previous Universe that collapsed upon itself with such gravity that it’s size approached nothingness. And that eventually our Universe will stop expanding, reverse and do the same.

There is zero evidence of this or previous universes.

Peace,
Ed

 

[JDaniel]

I do as well, but what I’m saying is that the only reason we have a concept of “before and after” is because of the temporal element of our reality. From what we know, God’s perception does not really include time, and as such he has no need for concepts like “before and after”

When we say that God created nothing before our universe, “before” is a meaningless modifier because it is referencing a being who has no conception of it. What is “before” to us is simultaneous to God. So technically, following this logic, it is impossible for God to have create a universe “Before” ours, but that doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a universe which existed “before” ours within our concept of time.

Prodgl:

That he doesn’t have a need for certain time-related concepts does not, of couse, mean that he is unaware of the concepts and their relevance to motion, finiteness and, therefore, time. It is my belief that God appears to roll-out creation events to us so as not to confront our minds with things we can’t handle. . . maybe ever. This is his Providential intention, I believe.

That which is infinite can have a complete concept of before and after, not only as time-related, but also, as sequence-related. Remember, God prepares the way(s). He prepares the universe and the world for us. He understands that preparation comes before insertion.

“Conception” is far different from actual “viewing.”

God bless,
jd