"The Big Crunch"

[nathandelane]

Hmm, this is definitely an interesting thread. It would seem that most of the opinions here are based on the claims that science has made in the past. The belief that there was in fact a beginning of the universe. I think that the reason people think there was a beginning of the universe is because they cannot fathom a universe without time. But time does not exist outside of the realm in which it's placed. Let's think about this. Time is based on the fact that the earth rotates at a rate of 24 hours per rotation, making a day, and revolves around the sun at approximately 365.24 days a year. That doesn't exist once you leave Earth. Also scientists have noted that our sun isn't expending gas or shrinking in size, rather in continually recycles itself, nullifying the idea of dead suns. I also doubt for that matter that the universe either begins or ends, or that it wraps around on itself, because that would imply that the universe is elliptical, but it is not. There isn't any proof that it is, but there is proof that it isn't, for example take a nebula, a cloud of dense gas - if the universe and all objects in the universe were spherical and made so by gravity or whatever, then it would be logical to assume that nebulae are elliptical in shape also, but they are not - the gas just spreads out apparently at random (though we know it's not random, because random doesn't really exist, otherwise we would be able to produce random). Now, the second law of thermodynamics states that a system will degrade or fall apart with time if no energy is put back into it. We can sometimes see that in our homes. It takes less energy to destroy a system than to create it, yet in the universe and in our own solar system and Earth many systems are in perfect order, and they aren't falling apart, so that would indicate that a Big Bang is illogical, because the bang would not produce energy rather it would expend energy, leaving nothing but rubble in effect.

Make sense? I think it's logical if nothing else.

[ELorenz]

First off this is not a negative response in any way shape or form, I'm not criticizing, just pointing out things you should consider.

There are several things that you're not taking into account with your logic here. One is that time is a fixed entity no matter what you label it. If you think of time like distance, then a fixed distance is the same no matter what you call it. So an interval of time is an interval no matter what you label that interval. Our system of measuring time is based on the earth. You also can't use part of the second law of thermodynamics, it is conditional on the system not being in equilibrium, so it doesn't apply to systems in perfect order as you put it. It also applies to a system that is isolated, some do however consider that the universe itself can be considered an isolated system.

Then we get to the nebula argument. I don't really know how you would relate something that is finite to an infinite system in this manner. I haven't studied the universe looping back around theory but I have the feeling that it relates to some topological properties that allow an infinite interval to do that. I don't know how much physics you have studied but how would you relate the properties of a dense cloud of gas to the universe? Can you relate the properties of a nebula to a planet? Or the properties of a planet to the universe? As to the random argument, read up on some chaos theory, one of the things that is being worked on in chaos theory is how to verify that something is truly random, I don't know if they've solved this problem yet but the little I've read has said no. We can however produce random, look into fluid dynamics, specifically non-laminar/non turbulent flow. We don't know what is going on there. You can also look into Edward Lorenz's weather modeling experiments of the 60's which is where we get the term the butterfly effect.

I would also be very careful about basing the existence of something on what we can produce, we can't produce energy, however it is still there, we just change its' form. Also just because there is no proof that something is true doesn't mean it's not. There is no proof that a rectangle is possible to construct because no one can prove Euclid's fifth postulate, therefore there is also no proof that a triangle or parallel lines exist.

[nathandelane]

Nice scientific rebuttal. I don't think that science is the answer to everything though. The universe in infinite, which humans have a difficult time comprehending, and the earth isn't going to explode. I know that. Nor is the universe going to collapse on itself, or shatter, or blow up or anything. It's bigger than us and it's eternal. These conclusions that science has given us are in some ways just tactics to get us to buy into their ideas - for example is global warming going to cause the next ice age, like it was twenty years ago, or is it going to cause the earth to shrivel up and all life to die, or does global warming even exist? An interesting thought hey? Science can't explain God, but God can explain science. There is also no such thing as anti-matter or immaterial matter. Science can't explain light, how it moves with or without a medium. But we do know something spectacular about light, that it's presence dissipates darkness, and it's absence allows darkness to encroach. I don't believe in either the Big Bang, the Big Crunch, or anything of the like. Seeing that things are ordered must lead to the idea that intelligence ordered it, and no scientist or scientific explanation can go beyond that. From Albert Einstein, one of the most influential scientists in the world (atom bomb for example), One is asked to imagine that one has found a watch on the beach. Does one assume that it was created by a watchmaker, or that it evolved naturally? Of course one assumes a watchmaker. Yet like the watch, the universe is intricate and complex; so, the argument goes, the universe too must have a creator. And one point I'd like to take from your argument, you stated:

...we can't produce energy, however it is still there, we just change it's form.

You're right about that, and we also can't create the elements or destroy them. They always exist in there elemental form. Now you're going to say, "ah, but the Bible states that God created the Earth." and I'm going to tell you that the Hebrew word for 'created' also means 'organized'. And these types of things including law-like structures are eternal. Science can't change that.

Now back to your theory about nebulae not being comparable to planets - why not? Planets are bodies of mass, and so are nebulae. That doesn't change anything. bunch of asteroids floating a way from a planet will behave in the same way as a nebula, not in the same way as a planet. I don't think that gravity really plays much of a role in the universe. We will likely find that gravity, though it exists on the Earth as it does, does not work everywhere in the same way. We will also likely find that other theories made physical laws are not accurate. People like Nikola Tesla and other scientists have proven this, yet we tend to stick with what we can explain, and not what we can't.

So why can't the universe be infinite? Numbers are. They never end. Why does it have to? To satisfy us? So that means that time, although perhaps measurable, is also infinite. What makes our planet so special that we think we know when the universe will end - I don't think it will - it's just another hoax from the scientific community.

[ELorenz]

Well I'm going to respond one more time... We can actually create elements, if by create you mean get an element that wasn't there in the first place. This process is done by adding or subtracting protons and electrons from other elements, it is possible and has been done, if i recall correctly the highest numbered elements on the periodic table are created by humans.

As for God creating the universe I'm not so sure about that, if I ever get the chance to ask him/her/it then I will do so, until then my vote is not being cast.

There are actually instances where the Earth could possibly explode, i.e. a large enough asteroid impacting or something of that nature. The Sun exploding is a more likely route though, and that is very possible given the right time frame, and not that difficult to achieve naturally, supernovas occur and can be predicted. However on that line of thinking the sun will actually expand past the Earths orbit and fry us long before it explodes, this will happen when the hydrogen is used up and the Sun starts using Helium for its burning process. However the Earth exploding/ceasing to exist really has no bearing on the universe as a whole, just our little section of it.

They actually did prove that anti - matter exists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter.

Evolution doesn't apply to non organic objects, and technically some elements will change state on their own, such as radioactive elements decay over time to non-radioactive elements.

There is some truth to what you say about gravity not being constant in the universe, however it has nothing to do with the Earth, it has more to do with quantum mechanics and sub atomic particles. i.e String Theory and things of that nature that make even the most intelligent people's brains' hurt. Gravity on the other hand in the sense of planets and things non sub atomic is generally a constant thing that reacts in predictable ways, if it weren't that way how would the planets have orbits, and galaxies have orbits, black holes- which also exist, and everything else. You brought up Einstein who actually worked to bridge the gap between the laws of physics for sub atomic situations and everything else. As for light, light is light, it has its' own properties, just as electrons are electrons that have their own properties. In some sense light can be treated as particles. Also light is effected by the medium it is traveling through.

I would do a little more research into the claims that you are making to develop your arguments a little better.

[griallia]

One, Nath, thank you for saying that time wouldn't exist if we were never here. Time is an illusion, but it also meaningful.

The universe can never freeze to a stand still, I don't even want to think that everything will one day freeze up and not move at all.

One, the universe will expand to it's limits, slow down, freeze, and then gravity takes over. But we're still in the process of speeding up anyway.

[novalyphe]

But time does not exist outside of the realm in which it's placed. Let's think about this. Time is based on the fact that the earth rotates at a rate of 24 hours per rotation, making a day, and revolves around the sun at approximately 365.24 days a year. That doesn't exist once you leave Earth.

This is not proof that time would not exist if we did not label it. You can define time using whatever constant you would like, we simply do that in order to measure it, if you aren't watching a clock time is still passing you just don't know what rate it is passing at. This is much the same as distance in that we use set distances i.e. the meter in order to measure others. It is possible to construct a units system for time and distance based on other constants (in fact I had to do this for an exercise in my first semester of my physics degree).

Science can't explain light, how it moves with or without a medium.

Light is a form of electromagnetic radiation which does not require a medium in order to propagate. I'm not sure what you mean by "can't explain how it moves" but light is simply emitted radiation, whether you treat it as a wave or a photon there is plenty of explanation as to how it moves as I interpret it.

But we're still in the process of speeding up anyway.

This cannot be true due to Newton's first law of motion. Assuming the universe began from a "Big Bang" the all matter will have been ejected out with a given velocity, once the explosion had ceased there is no longer a force acting on this matter in an outwards direction and therefore it cannot continue to accelerate away from the initial point.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
However, even if everything is slowing down this does not necessarily require the universe to end in a "Big Crunch" or in everything coming to a standstill. The concept is essentially that of escape velocity, depending on how much mass was initially present at the moment of the big bang, and the velocity with which it is all moving away from that point, it may continue on forever or it may slow to a stop and return to the centre. It is currently a matter of debate as to whether the velocities and masses are sufficient which is why there is no definitive answer as to the fate of the universe. It is however perfectly plausible for a "Big Crunch" to occur if the origin of the universe was indeed a "Big Bang".

[alchemydragon]

The big crunch does sound interesting. If it happens it happens. But let us remember that we are only able to see a small portion of the sky. Science does not really know where the "edges" are, if they are even there. Maybe it only looks like it is falling back on itself from our angle. Remember to find out how a fight started you need to know the stories of both sides and from those around them to find the real truth when you where not there to see it start.