• Lucid Dreaming - Dream Views
    Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
    Results 1 to 25 of 113
    1. #1
      Member Matt5678's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 2007
      Gender
      Location
      New York
      Posts
      397
      Likes
      1

      pulsating universe

      This is one of the most interesting theories i have read for the creation of the universe.

      http://www.mail-archive.com/eristocr.../msg00037.html

      Basically says that the universe pulsates kinda like a heart. After the Big Bang it expands as far as it can (what its doing now), and then gravity begins to pull it in until all the matter is once again on top of each other...then, BOOM! ...another Big bang.

      so if the sheer size of the universe didnt make you feel lonely enough. It is possible that we are just one spec of life in one pulse that has happend millions of times before.

      Still an infant theory that doesnt have a lot of science to support it yet, buts its very interesting i thought.
      Last edited by Matt5678; 12-26-2008 at 02:06 AM.
      "A dreamer is one who can only find his way by moonlight, and his punishment is that he sees the dawn before the rest of the world."
      -oscar wilde


    2. #2
      I am become fish pear Achievements:
      1 year registered Created Dream Journal Tagger Second Class Made lots of Friends on DV Referrer Gold 5000 Hall Points Veteran First Class
      Abra's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2007
      Location
      Doncha Know, Murka
      Posts
      3,813
      Likes
      535
      DJ Entries
      17
      I thought of that a while ago. Lemaitre was a priest before a scientist. Expansion of the universe implies it was once smaller. Big Bang implies a creation. The public is comfortable with that thought. It is familiar, enabling them to swallow the idea of the expansion of the universe more readily.

      Of course, I also think that each "pulse" of the universe is "simultaneous" (the universe is outide of time). I've toyed with the idea that the only reason the pulses restart is because the system is imbalanced--it requires sufficient "awareness" to continue.
      Abraxas

      Quote Originally Posted by OldSparta
      I murdered someone, there was bloody everywhere. On the walls, on my hands. The air smelled metallic, like iron. My mouth... tasted metallic, like iron. The floor was metallic, probably iron

    3. #3
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Currently Offline
      Banned Achievements:
      1 year registered Veteran First Class Referrer Bronze Made lots of Friends on DV Populated Wall

      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      10,002
      Likes
      3114
      Well, what the website described, as far as I can see, is nonsense. Even if there was some reason for the universe to repeatedly stop growing for a while, it would not be infinitely old. The whole reason we believe there was a Big Bang is that we observe that all galaxies are flying away from us; then we just extrapolate backwards in time.

      What you described is actually an extremely well known cosmological theory. If there is a high amount of mass in the universe, this would be true. However, by current estimates, there is not enough, by a factor of around 100; the universe will continue expanding forever, and fizzle out.

      Personally I believe that there are many universes though.
      Last edited by Xei; 12-26-2008 at 06:10 PM.

    4. #4
      Banned
      Join Date
      Jun 2008
      Gender
      Location
      Ontario
      Posts
      2,119
      Likes
      1
      I've never understood how the cyclical universe hypothesis dealt with entropy. Either the laws of thermodynamics break down at the big bang, or there's an external area outside our universe, giving us more energy. Neither option is very satisfying.

    5. #5
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Currently Offline
      Banned Achievements:
      1 year registered Veteran First Class Referrer Bronze Made lots of Friends on DV Populated Wall

      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      10,002
      Likes
      3114
      That's an interesting point... a singularity is a singularity, I don't see how the singularity at the end of time could have any less entropy than that at the start, violating the second law of thermodynamics...

      Then again I haven't studied entropy.

    6. #6
      I am become fish pear Achievements:
      1 year registered Created Dream Journal Tagger Second Class Made lots of Friends on DV Referrer Gold 5000 Hall Points Veteran First Class
      Abra's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2007
      Location
      Doncha Know, Murka
      Posts
      3,813
      Likes
      535
      DJ Entries
      17
      Quote Originally Posted by drewmandan View Post
      I've never understood how the cyclical universe hypothesis dealt with entropy. Either the laws of thermodynamics break down at the big bang, or there's an external area outside our universe, giving us more energy. Neither option is very satisfying.
      Energy is never lost. It is lost as thermal energy, and dissipates through the universe. It doesn't leave the universe--the universe is a closed system (for this argument. Just as you said, it doesn't make sense for energy to come in from an outside source, it also doesn't make sense for it to leave to an outside place.). The universe has the same amount of stuff (energy and matter) as it had in the first place.
      Abraxas

      Quote Originally Posted by OldSparta
      I murdered someone, there was bloody everywhere. On the walls, on my hands. The air smelled metallic, like iron. My mouth... tasted metallic, like iron. The floor was metallic, probably iron

    7. #7
      Member ChaybaChayba's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2008
      Gender
      Location
      Skypedia
      Posts
      1,903
      Likes
      61
      Everything in the universe is cyclic, so why not the universe itself too? As above, so below..
      "Reject common sense to make the impossible possible." -Kamina

    8. #8
      Banned
      Join Date
      Jun 2008
      Gender
      Location
      Ontario
      Posts
      2,119
      Likes
      1
      Quote Originally Posted by Abra View Post
      Energy is never lost. It is lost as thermal energy, and dissipates through the universe. It doesn't leave the universe--the universe is a closed system (for this argument. Just as you said, it doesn't make sense for energy to come in from an outside source, it also doesn't make sense for it to leave to an outside place.). The universe has the same amount of stuff (energy and matter) as it had in the first place.
      That's a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Here are two versions, both of which don't allow what you just described:

      "Heat generally cannot spontaneously flow from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature."

      "It is impossible to convert heat completely into work in a cyclic process."

      The background radiation is almost completely unusable, at least according to thermodynamics.

    9. #9
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Currently Offline
      Banned Achievements:
      1 year registered Veteran First Class Referrer Bronze Made lots of Friends on DV Populated Wall

      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      10,002
      Likes
      3114
      Hmmm... I remember that at the Big Bang though spacetime was infinitely wrapped up, before expanding. If a very large quantity of the mass in the universe had formed a singularity, spacetime would be very warped to the extent that it could suck in radiation... I don't know if this solves the thermodynamics problem though.
      Everything in the universe is cyclic, so why not the universe itself too? As above, so below..
      Really? Okay, explain how the following things are cyclic:

      - A ruler.
      - Radioactive decay.
      - Computational linguistics.
      - y = ax + b
      - Ringo Starr.
      - Adjectives.
      - Ham.

    10. #10
      Banned
      Join Date
      Jun 2008
      Gender
      Location
      Ontario
      Posts
      2,119
      Likes
      1
      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      Hmmm... I remember that at the Big Bang though spacetime was infinitely wrapped up, before expanding. If a very large quantity of the mass in the universe had formed a singularity, spacetime would be very warped to the extent that it could suck in radiation... I don't know if this solves the thermodynamics problem though.
      Indeed, one can imagine that if the spacetime metric itself shrinks to a Planck length, thermodynamics might not work the same way. But then again, the radiation is radiating out at the speed of light. It's like an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object. What wins? We may never know. But we do know for sure that our current understanding of thermodynamics would have to be wrong for the radiation to be 're-integrated' into the singularity.

    11. #11
      Member Matt5678's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 2007
      Gender
      Location
      New York
      Posts
      397
      Likes
      1
      well, id think that the idea that the universe is "pulsating" would explain where all the matter came from (Kinda)

      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      What you described is actually an extremely well known cosmological theory. If there is a high amount of mass in the universe, this would be true. However, by current estimates, there is not enough, by a factor of around 100;
      but all the matter in the universe had to have been on top of each other at some point (as described by the big bang). So how did it all get there? Because it was all pulled in by gravity.

      where else could it have come from?

      i dont know, im a man of ignorance with a willingness to learn
      Last edited by Matt5678; 12-27-2008 at 07:43 AM.
      "A dreamer is one who can only find his way by moonlight, and his punishment is that he sees the dawn before the rest of the world."
      -oscar wilde


    12. #12
      Look away wendylove's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Secret forum
      Posts
      1,064
      Likes
      1
      well, id think that the idea that the universe is "pulsating" would explain where all the matter came from (Kinda)
      Not really.

      but all the matter in the universe had to have been on top of each other at some point (as described by the big bang).
      No

      i dont know, im a man of ignorance with a willingness to learn
      Well, you're dealing with advance ideas that needs advance understanding of mathematics.

      Saying that I think the most popular view is something called inflationary cosmology, which is kind of like the universe was kind of like alot of bubbles, were one of the bubbles that was inflated and grew into our universe.
      Xaqaria
      The planet Earth exhibits all of these properties and therefore can be considered alive and its own single organism by the scientific definition.
      7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms.
      does the planet Earth reproduce, well no unless you count the moon.

    13. #13
      Ehh..Well..Uhm...HUGS!
      Join Date
      Dec 2008
      Gender
      Location
      Netherlands
      Posts
      842
      Likes
      0
      I would say no.
      About 5 billion years ago, the universe sort of had a 'break' in expansion. Since then it's been expanding ever more rapidly.
      Thanks to this is the effect of Gravity and Dark Energy (the energy of the vacuum): gravity has a limited reach (go read Newton), while Dark Energy has an infinite reach. Dark energy is gravity's counter force: it makes object get away from eachother.
      First, the DE pulls the objects away, but struggles against gravity. As the objects get further and further apart, the gravity lessens, thus accelerating the objects. That's what's been happening to the universe lately

    14. #14
      Banned
      Join Date
      Jun 2008
      Gender
      Location
      Ontario
      Posts
      2,119
      Likes
      1
      Quote Originally Posted by ThreeLetterSyndrom View Post
      I would say no.
      About 5 billion years ago, the universe sort of had a 'break' in expansion. Since then it's been expanding ever more rapidly.
      Thanks to this is the effect of Gravity and Dark Energy (the energy of the vacuum): gravity has a limited reach (go read Newton), while Dark Energy has an infinite reach. Dark energy is gravity's counter force: it makes object get away from eachother.
      First, the DE pulls the objects away, but struggles against gravity. As the objects get further and further apart, the gravity lessens, thus accelerating the objects. That's what's been happening to the universe lately
      It doesn't sound like you know what you're talking about.

    15. #15
      Banned
      Join Date
      Jun 2008
      Gender
      Location
      SLC, UT
      Posts
      835
      Likes
      0
      Actually I have read about this information in the Scientific American many different times with different articles with new developments.

      The science community has been very close to this idea for a little over a year now.

      But this article has a tone of flaws and makes ridiculous questions for the big-bang theory which he himself does not own up to in his theory.

      Either way, his theory is still using the idea of the big-bang theory.
      Last edited by dylanshmai; 12-28-2008 at 12:06 AM.

    16. #16
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Currently Offline
      Banned Achievements:
      1 year registered Veteran First Class Referrer Bronze Made lots of Friends on DV Populated Wall

      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      10,002
      Likes
      3114
      but all the matter in the universe had to have been on top of each other at some point (as described by the big bang). So how did it all get there? Because it was all pulled in by gravity.

      where else could it have come from?

      i dont know, im a man of ignorance with a willingness to learn
      It was just there. You're saying that mass was created separated by space, then it came together under gravity to form a singularity, then it exploded to make the universe; the first step is completely unnecessary. We might as well just say the singularity exploded to form the universe.

    17. #17
      Look away wendylove's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Secret forum
      Posts
      1,064
      Likes
      1
      Actually I have read about this information in the Scientific American many different times with different articles with new developments.
      Have you read any uni books on cosmology? and not just dumbed down crap they put in Scientific American.

      gravity has a limited reach (go read Newton),
      I'm pretty sure there have been some recent developement in the theory of gravity.

      We might as well just say the singularity exploded to form the universe.
      Entropy has to be really low at the time of the big bang, so no explosion.
      Xaqaria
      The planet Earth exhibits all of these properties and therefore can be considered alive and its own single organism by the scientific definition.
      7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms.
      does the planet Earth reproduce, well no unless you count the moon.

    18. #18
      Drivel's Advocate Achievements:
      1 year registered Created Dream Journal Tagger Second Class Made lots of Friends on DV 5000 Hall Points 1000 Hall Points Veteran First Class
      Xaqaria's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2007
      LD Count
      WhoIsJohnGalt?
      Gender
      Location
      San Diego, CA Catchphrase: BullCockie!
      Posts
      5,592
      Likes
      914
      DJ Entries
      9
      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      It was just there. You're saying that mass was created separated by space, then it came together under gravity to form a singularity, then it exploded to make the universe; the first step is completely unnecessary. We might as well just say the singularity exploded to form the universe.
      Reality does not exist for your perception of necessity.

      The ability to happily respond to any adversity is the divine.
      Art
      Dream Journal Shaman Apprentice Chronicles

    19. #19
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Currently Offline
      Banned Achievements:
      1 year registered Veteran First Class Referrer Bronze Made lots of Friends on DV Populated Wall

      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      10,002
      Likes
      3114
      Yeah that follows directly and is definitely completely related to what I said.

    20. #20
      Banned
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      日本 Nippon
      Posts
      410
      Likes
      1
      Quote Originally Posted by wendylove View Post
      Entropy has to be really low at the time of the big bang, so no explosion.
      Agree..

      It amazes me however, considering the Universe itself has a well-defined thermodynamic arrow of time. But this doesn't address the question of why the initial state of the universe was that of low entropy? If cosmic expansion were to halt and reverse due to gravity, the temperature of the Universe would once again increase, but its entropy would continue to increase due to the continued growth of perturbations and eventually blackhole formation. Kind of makes you wonder.

    21. #21
      Drivel's Advocate Achievements:
      1 year registered Created Dream Journal Tagger Second Class Made lots of Friends on DV 5000 Hall Points 1000 Hall Points Veteran First Class
      Xaqaria's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2007
      LD Count
      WhoIsJohnGalt?
      Gender
      Location
      San Diego, CA Catchphrase: BullCockie!
      Posts
      5,592
      Likes
      914
      DJ Entries
      9
      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      Yeah that follows directly and is definitely completely related to what I said.
      No? I thought you were saying that any conditions that lead to a singularity expanding to create the known universe were unnecessary in a cosmological model since it could have easily have started with the singularity. My point is that Even if we came up with a model that had the universe beginning with the big bang that remained consistent with all observable phenomena, it is still a possibility that the singularity was in fact caused by something else. Reality doesn't necessarily only contain what is 'needed' and may well contain an infinite set of superfluous possibilities.

      The ability to happily respond to any adversity is the divine.
      Art
      Dream Journal Shaman Apprentice Chronicles

    22. #22
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Currently Offline
      Banned Achievements:
      1 year registered Veteran First Class Referrer Bronze Made lots of Friends on DV Populated Wall

      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      10,002
      Likes
      3114
      Oh yes, it's a possibility, of course; something I imagine we'll probably work out in the end through progress in physics, too.

      It's just the person who asked the question was saying that the only possible source of a singularity would have been a past universe collapsing, which is not true... it's no less possible that the singularity at the Big Bang was the very beginning. We really don't know where the singularity 'came from' (as far as I know) so it's just guesswork at the moment.

    23. #23
      Ex Tech Admin Achievements:
      Created Dream Journal Made lots of Friends on DV Tagger First Class Referrer Gold Veteran Second Class 10000 Hall Points
      slash112's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2008
      Gender
      Location
      Sunny Scotland
      Posts
      4,648
      Likes
      941
      DJ Entries
      17
      the whole gravity pulling it together thing, thats called the big crunch, its the opposite of the big bang and it takes away a bit of the universe, i read about the big bang and the big crunch when i was about 7 or 8 years old.

    24. #24
      Banned
      Join Date
      Jun 2008
      Gender
      Location
      Ontario
      Posts
      2,119
      Likes
      1
      I think the problem a lot of people encounter here is that they read about things like "big bang" and "big bounce" while knowing exactly 0% of the math and physics that went into these concepts. So then they come up with completely ridiculous mental images like the big bang being like an explosion, and then they reject these theories based on their own misunderstandings.

    25. #25
      Ex Tech Admin Achievements:
      Created Dream Journal Made lots of Friends on DV Tagger First Class Referrer Gold Veteran Second Class 10000 Hall Points
      slash112's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2008
      Gender
      Location
      Sunny Scotland
      Posts
      4,648
      Likes
      941
      DJ Entries
      17
      Quote Originally Posted by drewmandan View Post
      I think the problem a lot of people encounter here is that they read about things like "big bang" and "big bounce" while knowing exactly 0% of the math and physics that went into these concepts. So then they come up with completely ridiculous mental images like the big bang being like an explosion, and then they reject these theories based on their own misunderstandings.
      the big bang is actually two extremely small particles colliding, then something happens, to do with electrons etc. i dont know much quantum physics. and within a nanosecond a chunk of universe "appears" (obviously not a scientific description)

      and the big crunch is basically just an implosion, probably caused by a black hole or something.

      and the big bounce is just a scientific model of what they think the formation of the universe is, its not a thing which happened. here is the model:
      Attached Images

    Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •