Is the Big Bang Cycling Through Hidden Time?

Who hasn't looked up at the star-studded night sky and wondered, "Where did everything come from?" 
There are many ways to address this question. It was Edwin Hubble whose telescopic observations of galaxies in 1929 led to the major discovery that the universe is expanding, and that the rate of expansion is proportional to how far the galaxies are from one another. The farther apart they are, they faster they are going. This result implies there was a time about 13.75 billion years ago when the universe began in an event we now call the Big Bang. 

The Big Bang

The evidence suggests the Big Bang was something mind-blowing in its scale, described in the theory of inflation, first presented by Alan Guth in 1979 and elaborated upon in his book "The Inflationary Universe" (Perseus Books, 1997). Guth suggests the entire universe came essentially out of nowhere, at a rate that is incomprehensible: Within a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, the universe expanded by a factor of 10⁷⁸ in volume — that's a 10 with 78 zeros after it. We really have no idea how this happened, which naturally gives rise to many theories.

Cyclic universes

The cyclic universe theory is an attempt to try and understand how the Big Bang could have occurred. Put forth by Albert Einstein in 1931, the theory suggests that prior to the Big Bang, there was another universe that existed. This universe expanded, then contracted into what is called a "big crunch," and its contraction led to the Big Bang that created our universe. 
According to that theory, our universe could do the same thing. In fact, there could have been a whole sequence of such universes, expanding and contracting, perhaps going on forever. 


http://www.space.com/29517-is-the-big-bang-cycling-through-time.html

i thought the big bang had been given up on..

watched a progra on the inflation idea they seemed to lack proof...

The cyclic universe theory is an attempt to try and understand how the Big Bang could have occurred. Put forth by Albert Einstein in 1931, the theory suggests that prior to the Big Bang, there was another universe that existed. This universe expanded, then contracted into what is called a "big crunch," and its contraction led to the Big Bang that created our universe. 
According to that theory, our universe could do the same thing. In fact, there could have been a whole sequence of such universes, expanding and contracting, perhaps going on forever

Hi Didge. Isn't this what I've been saying for a long time, in our discussions? Usually, though there are exceptions, expansion eventually reaches its extent and thus begins contracting again, into a Big Crunch. Then the whole process starts again, another big bang. And so on, ad-infinitum.

stardesk wrote:The cyclic universe theory is an attempt to try and understand how the Big Bang could have occurred. Put forth by Albert Einstein in 1931, the theory suggests that prior to the Big Bang, there was another universe that existed. This universe expanded, then contracted into what is called a "big crunch," and its contraction led to the Big Bang that created our universe. 
According to that theory, our universe could do the same thing. In fact, there could have been a whole sequence of such universes, expanding and contracting, perhaps going on forever

Hi Didge. Isn't this what I've been saying for a long time, in our discussions? Usually, though there are exceptions, expansion eventually reaches its extent and thus begins contracting again, into a Big Crunch. Then the whole process starts again, another big bang. And so on, ad-infinitum.

Morning Stardesk

The article is open to the many theories around the big bang, which like myself I am too.
There is more on the link, but it is very interesting. I have always believed that it is one continious cycle. There is still the issue when and how it would first begin.

Belatucadros wrote:

stardesk wrote:The cyclic universe theory is an attempt to try and understand how the Big Bang could have occurred. Put forth by Albert Einstein in 1931, the theory suggests that prior to the Big Bang, there was another universe that existed. This universe expanded, then contracted into what is called a "big crunch," and its contraction led to the Big Bang that created our universe. 
According to that theory, our universe could do the same thing. In fact, there could have been a whole sequence of such universes, expanding and contracting, perhaps going on forever

Hi Didge. Isn't this what I've been saying for a long time, in our discussions? Usually, though there are exceptions, expansion eventually reaches its extent and thus begins contracting again, into a Big Crunch. Then the whole process starts again, another big bang. And so on, ad-infinitum.

Morning Stardesk

The article is open to the many theories around the big bang, which like myself I am too.
There is more on the link, but it is very interesting. I have always believed that it is one continious cycle. There is still the issue when and how it would first begin.

you believe it without absolute evidence, good on you, you have more than one religion then...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


Morning Stardesk

The article is open to the many theories around the big bang, which like myself I am too.
There is more on the link, but it is very interesting. I have always believed that it is one continious cycle. There is still the issue when and how it would first begin.

you believe it without absolute evidence, good on you, you have more than one religion then...

It may help that you read before replying.
My belief is this is a continious cycle. However I would be quite happy in my belief here was wrong, hence why my view is this theory best fits, but it is just a theory, hence why you fail to understand science that well. So where I can quite happily be wrong here, your faith does not allow you to be wrong, hence the massive difference.
So no religion as there is no deity to be worshipped or believed in. Just you being a completely ignorant as per usual.

Belatucadros wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
you believe it without absolute evidence, good on you, you have more than one religion then...

It may help that you read before replying.
My belief is this is a continious cycle. However I would be quite happy in my belief here was wrong, hence why my view is this theory best fits, but it is just a theory, hence why you fail to understand science that well. So where I can quite happily be wrong here, your faith does not allow you to be wrong, hence the massive difference.
So no religion as there is no deity to be worshipped or beliebed, just you being a completely ignorant as per usual.

faith of thigs unseen, thats religion ..lol

funny how you would demand absolute proof of the existance of God and accept what men tell you... but hey that's choice for you...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

It may help that you read before replying.
My belief is this is a continious cycle. However I would be quite happy in my belief here was wrong, hence why my view is this theory best fits, but it is just a theory, hence why you fail to understand science that well. So where I can quite happily be wrong here, your faith does not allow you to be wrong, hence the massive difference.
So no religion as there is no deity to be worshipped or beliebed, just you being a completely ignorant as per usual.

faith of thigs unseen, thats religion ..lol

funny how you would demand absolute proof of the existance of God and accept what men tell you... but hey that's choice for you...

No, you are being ignorant again:

religionnoun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Belatucadros wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
faith of thigs unseen, thats religion ..lol

funny how you would demand absolute proof of the existance of God and accept what men tell you... but hey that's choice for you...

No, you are being ignorant again:

religionnoun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

a persuit followed with great devotion...

sounds like you, you also have blind faith in it so sounds very religious and with no absolute proof...

laters...............  lol

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

No, you are being ignorant again:

religionnoun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

a persuit followed with great devotion...

sounds like you, you also have blind faith in it so sounds very religious and with no absolute proof...

laters...............  lol

No you are just being an idiot and again and fail to understand English it seems.
So best you stop being a twat or you will be placed on ignore, because I really am getting bored of you spoiling debates, with your utter ignorance and bigotry.
If I believe I can be wrong on my view on this theory, explain how that is blind faith?
So you think that people who admit they may be wrong is blind faith?

The Big Crunch is just a hypothesis. And one that depends on their being enough gravitational attraction to bring the elementary particles toewards each other again.

But with the universe expanding at an ever faster rate, theorists have their money on a Big Freeze.

the next step to this is branes theory and the Multiverse
the Idea that these universal instances did not occur one after another but essentially at the 'same' time since at the point they shrink back to singularity all time and matter are in the same place/state thus as they start expanding again they are all expanding from the same point in time.
thus all the universal instances exist in the same time.
one of the quantum physics explanations is that each universal instance vibrates at a different wavelength thus can exist in the same time and space as each other without Physically interacting.

I think HF's problem is he doesn't understand the modern interpretation and use of the word/concept of Theory.

well you see the problem is some say, it's a theory, that means it's not fully proven then in the next breath claim evolution is proven and they call it theory but it is proven.

So i'm no sure which way people work the term theory..

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:well you see the problem is some say, it's a theory, that means it's not fully proven then in the next breath claim evolution is proven and they call it theory but it is proven.

So i'm no sure which way people work the term theory..

Please get eduction
2 Different things that have same name depending on a slight variation Not exactly unique scenario (English is a Stupid language)
Yes Didge doesn't know what he is talking about but Evolution is proven, the Theory of evolution is specifically the theory of WHY things evolve and that is not proven.

WHY things evolve is in question the quest for reproduction and survival do seem most probable BUT there are example for both of Animals that clearly exist and seem to completely ignore those drivers.
Evolution mechanics have been part of science since Mendel and Lamarck almost a century before Darwin was born.
genetics and evolution are the same thing, they exist because of the other they wouldn't exist if the other does not.

veya_victaous wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:well you see the problem is some say, it's a theory, that means it's not fully proven then in the next breath claim evolution is proven and they call it theory but it is proven.

So i'm no sure which way people work the term theory..

Please get eduction
2 Different things that have same name depending on a slight variation Not exactly unique scenario (English is a Stupid language)
Yes Didge doesn't know what he is talking about but Evolution is proven, the Theory of evolution is specifically the theory of WHY things evolve and that is not proven.

WHY things evolve is in question the quest for reproduction and survival do seem most probable BUT there are example for both of Animals that clearly exist and seem to completely ignore those drivers.
Evolution mechanics have been part of science since Mendel and Lamarck almost a century before Darwin was born.
genetics and evolution are the same thing, they exist because of the other they wouldn't exist if the other does not.

what is eduction???? lol...
why we see adaption not evolution is in question... along with what mutations created the changes that allegedly happened. blah blah blah..

the big bang is an even bigger case of guess work..

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:well you see the problem is some say, it's a theory, that means it's not fully proven then in the next breath claim evolution is proven and they call it theory but it is proven.

So i'm no sure which way people work the term theory..

Please get eduction
2 Different things that have same name depending on a slight variation Not exactly unique scenario (English is a Stupid language)
Yes Didge doesn't know what he is talking about but Evolution is proven, the Theory of evolution is specifically the theory of WHY things evolve and that is not proven.

WHY things evolve is in question the quest for reproduction and survival do seem most probable BUT there are example for both of Animals that clearly exist and seem to completely ignore those drivers.
Evolution mechanics have been part of science since Mendel and Lamarck almost a century before Darwin was born.
genetics and evolution are the same thing, they exist because of the other they wouldn't exist if the other does not.

what is eduction????  lol...
why we see adaption not evolution is in question... along with what mutations created the changes that allegedly happened. blah blah blah..

the big bang is an even bigger case of guess work..

evolution is adaption to environment over time so BY admitting we see adaption you just agreed that evolution is seen

Big bang is still much more theoretical but is still not really 'guess work' it is extrapolation of the movements of celestial bodies, we just have not measured enough movements of celestial bodies yet to make too definitive a claim

HF, scientists use the word "theory" in a different sense than we usually use the word.

In science, a theory is a proposed explanation that has been supported by evidence gathered from rigorous experimentation and/or mathematical proof.

Most people use the word to mean something like a hunch or conjecture, but in science that would be called a hypothesis, not a theory. Once scientists come up with a hypothesis, experimentation begins in an attempt to prove that the hypothesis is false, not to prove that it's true.