Trotsky wrote

p3adrenaline wrote

Trotsky wrote

p3adrenaline wrote

Lavish wrote Just going to go with this quote;

"Everything has an expiration date."

Hmm. Not necessarily true... Let me evaluate, many things in the world are actually endless, such things can range from organisms to compounds. Jellyfish actually can't die from age, expanding, their genetically engineered in a way that they actually can not die from age but they can only be killed. Compounds can stay their same form until they change form, and even than they are technically "not expired". Dark matter also can not "expire"

Using organic matter for an argument like this really isn't a good idea.
Eventually those jellyfish will be pulled apart atom by atom, just like everything will if the Universe keeps expanding.

Also, what's your reasoning for believing that if this Big Crunch does occur it's logical for a big bang to happen again, and for it to happen in the exact same way that it did this time?

If your theory is true, there is an infinite regress at work, and everyone knows that's tricky ground.

and post your source next time:
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

If the Big Crunch is true, than all exiting matter would be pushed back into the originating shape from which the Big Bang originate from. Meaning that all existing matter and energy would be composed into the ball of mass following the law that no matter or energy can be created or destroyed, therefore the same amount of matter and energy would be contained inside of the ball of mass and energy that sparked the big banging. Therefore you can assume the same thing that started the first Big Bang could happen once again, infinitely.

Yes but you said in the same way.
Matter can't be destroyed or created but it can change.
What if this ball changes shape or density in some places, more energy is thrown off in one direction than another.
Then everything would not be the same, Earth might not exist in this 'New Universe.'

You make a good point. But in my opinion all the matter and energy would be forced back together in a way that it will be the same density and be in the Same exact form as it originated. It's just a theory though so anything could be plausible

The question i always ask myself is 'what is the actual real time'?

xAJPM wrote The question i always ask myself is 'what is the actual real time'?

Hmm I don't understand what you mean. Elaborate?

Lavish wrote Just going to go with this quote;

"Everything has an expiration date."

I disagree I have shot gun shells that are 20 years old and I was shooting them the other day so somethings don't go bad!

Well a couple of points to address here. 'blueshift' is not a 'theory' by definition and taking into consideration the fact that the universe is undergoing exponential growth the idea of a big crunch a very weakly based theory. In fact considering the dark energy it wouldn't be a surprise that the universe will expand indefinitely.

However, even considering such there isn't exactly a reverse in 'time'. Or then (by your definition) it could be said that time is exponentially increasing at a greater rate, which is not true. Either way you're relating this so called contraction with a reversal of time which is simply flawed logic, You can bend time but you can't reverse it.

Time is man made so it will stop eventually.

Folk wrote Time is man made so it will stop eventually.

No, time is an inherent dimension of the universe. Just because we created scales for measuring time does not mean we created time itself, from your logic then we 'invented' all dimensions in space despite the fact that they're fundamental aspects of the universe whether or not humans are present or not..

iyop45 wrote Well a couple of points to address here. 'blueshift' is not a 'theory' by definition and taking into consideration the fact that the universe is undergoing exponential growth the idea of a big crunch a very weakly based theory. In fact considering the dark energy it wouldn't be a surprise that the universe will expand indefinitely.

However, even considering such there isn't exactly a reverse in 'time'. Or then (by your definition) it could be said that time is exponentially increasing at a greater rate, which is not true. Either way you're relating this so called contraction with a reversal of time which is simply flawed logic, You can bend time but you can't reverse it.

I see where your coming from but I never said "reverse time" I said time would restart. Meaning that instead of there being an end to time itself it would go back to where it originally started. Time in my opinion is relative to energy and matter where it cannot be created or destroyed, meaning that it's always been there and always will be there.

"Energy/Matter can not be created nor destroyed". That statement is only relative to our current understanding of physics. We have yet to unlock all the physics in the Universe, so who's to say (Besides renown physicists, who only know our current understandings of physics) that matter can't be created or destroyed? What I'm trying to say is, no matter how much scientific proof we may have, time is relative to us, so it doesn't end or start.

BigWes wrote "Energy/Matter can not be created nor destroyed". That statement is only relative to our current understanding of physics. We have yet to unlock all the physics in the Universe, so who's to say (Besides renown physicists, who only know our current understandings of physics) that matter can't be created or destroyed? What I'm trying to say is, no matter how much scientific proof we may have, time is relative to us, so it doesn't end or start.

No it has been proven. You can not bring energy or matter into the universe or out of the universe, it can only change forms.