Before the Big Bang: An eternal cyclic universe

[Joshpantera]

This touches on Roger Penrose's new ideas with a lot of visual presentations: 

 

 

Hawking - Penrose singularity theory is discussed around 6:00. How that relates to christian apologetics and William Lane Craig is discussed at the link below: 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

Such cyclic universe schemes have been around and proposed for many decades but none can be any more than pure  speculation unless the proposers of such ideas can conceive of a way where somehow there proposal could be observed or tested. Anything else is not science.

 

At least Roger Penrose can speak well concerning the possibility of creating logical theories, many other theorists cannot IMO.

[Joshpantera]

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

Such cyclic universe schemes have been around and proposed for many decades but none can be any more than pure  speculation unless the proposers of such ideas can conceive of a way where somehow there proposal could be observed or tested. Anything else is not science.

 

At least Roger Penrose can speak well concerning the possibility of creating logical theories, many other theorists cannot IMO.

 

One thing of interest is how they propose how evidences from an early "epoch" can be detected through the CBMR wall. Such as black hole decay. And how the existence of dark matter is explained well through CCC. That goes into the 25:00 plus area of the video. Around 38:00 Penrose goes into B Mode Polarization and how that can potentially be viewed as magnetic fields from a previous "epoch" getting through. 

[pantheory]

On 11/13/2019 at 1:04 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

One thing of interest is how they propose how evidences from an early "epoch" can be detected through the CBMR wall. Such as black hole decay. And how the existence of dark matter is explained well through CCC. That goes into the 25:00 plus area of the video. Around 38:00 Penrose goes into B Mode Polarization and how that can potentially be viewed as magnetic fields from a previous "epoch" getting through. 

 

 

These cyclic universe models have collectively been called Big Bounce models. Although possibilities derived from one or more collective interpretations can have various, or a great many implications, one interpretation can be just one of many dozens of possible interpretations. Even the primary mainstream interpretation of any particular observation is often wrong IMO. The beginnings of all theories in science are almost always speculation having at least one reason for it. Penrose is, and should be considered a respected theorist because he can explain the logic to his speculation, concerning the  "could be s" and related possibilities.

 

As for me, I have long proposed a universe trillions of years old rather than just 13.8 billion years as in the Big Bang model, but still a universe that once had a beginning, with nothing before that. If you are interested. see the link below. Of course there are possible observational justifications for this model also as there are for all science based models. Speculation becomes a hypothesis when the model can be tested by observation. Hypothesis become theory when many observations seem to confirm it. Also to be considered a theory in cosmology it needs to be testable in the eyes of many, and have a half dozen or more mainstream theorists that consider it one of the likely possibilities.

 

http://www.pantheory.org/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

2 hours ago, pantheory said:

As for me, I have long proposed a universe trillions of years old rather than just 13.8 billion years as in the Big Bang model, but still a universe that once had a beginning, with nothing before that.

 

That's odd, because in the something or nothing thread you seemed to be of the opinion that something will need to come from something, rather something coming from nothing.

 

So I'm not sure how to take your proposing a cosmological model of nothing became something trillions of years ago. How there could have been an absolute nothing in the equation faces the same questions as creation ex nihilo or anything similar coming from a cosmological theory. 

 

One of the main points of interest in Penrose's cyclic model is that it's a something coming from something oriented model. And from what I understand most BBT oriented models now look at it with attention to past eternal scenario's because they're pretty much unavoidable. 

[pantheory]

On 11/14/2019 at 3:25 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

That's odd, because in the something or nothing thread you seemed to be of the opinion that something will need to come from something, rather something coming from nothing.

 

So I'm not sure how to take your proposing a cosmological model of nothing became something trillions of years ago. How there could have been an absolute nothing in the equation faces the same questions as creation ex nihilo or anything similar coming from a cosmological theory. 

 

One of the main points of interest in Penrose's cyclic model is that it's a something coming from something oriented model. And from what I understand most BBT oriented models now look at it with attention to past eternal scenario's because they're pretty much unavoidable. 

 

Yes, IMO something did come from something to start with. But like the original Big Bang version time began by the first changes in that something. There was no such thing as a time before that. Both time and space were created by, and can be defined by characteristics of that something. Time can be exactly equated with change, changes in that something, and today be changes in matter. There was no change before the first change, and accordingly there was no such thing as a time before that first change in the beginning entity Space can be defined as the distance between matter and the volume which it collectively occupies, nothing more than that.There would be no such thing as space outside the confines of matter and the universe. Rene De Carte said: space is an extension of matter, and Einstein said: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter.

 

Accordingly everything in the universe would be relatively simple, and If a  theory is not generally simple then it's very likely wrong IMO . Although I never believed in the Big Bang model or any expanding universe model, at least the first Big Bang version seemed simple enough.

 

In 1927 Lemaître proposed an expanding universe hypothesis to explain the observed redshifts of spiral nebulae, and did the first calculations proposing an expanding universe mathematical cosmology using the equations of Einstein and De Sitter. He called his theory the "Fireworks theory."

 

On the other hand, the discoverer of the distance-to-redshift relationship, Erwin Hubble, never believed in an expanding universe or the Big Bang theory; instead he believed there was another explanation for the observed redshifts. There have been many other explanations proposed for the observed redshifts of galaxies in Hubble's time, and many more have been proposed since then to the present day.

 

https://www.science20.com/eternal_blogs/blog/hubble_eventually_did_not_believe_big_bang_associated_press-85962

 

Now, of course, the Big Bang model is much more complicated proposing Inflation, dark matter, dark energy, etc., although none of these things have been observed. This is because IMO all of these things are imaginary place holders for far simpler characteristics and relationships that mainstream cosmology presently does not understand. 

 

Your quote: "One of the main points of interest in Penrose's cyclic model is that it's a something coming from something oriented model. And from what I understand most BBT oriented models now look at it with attention to past eternal scenario's because they're pretty much unavoidable."

 

Although much better than multiverse theory IMO, the Big Bounce model still does not explain the observed universe any better than the Big Bang model. This is because it is essentially the same theory excepting that it proposes a different cyclical beginning. I can't think of any aspect of the BB theory that is right. Yes, the equations of General Relativity collectively are the best model of gravity that we have, but also IMO the warped space, curved space, 4D space, and expanding space concepts are all wrong. Space is accordingly no more than the distance between matter.

 

Maybe 3 or more years after the James Webb space telescope and the Atacama long baseline radio-scopes are fully functional, expected to be about 2024-26, if it is announced that they have found at the farthest observable distances some old, very large and red appearing elliptical and spiral galaxies, maybe with observably high metallicities in accord with predictions of a much older or infinite-age universe, this would be strong evidence that the universe is much older and that the Big Bang model would likely be wrong. This would also include the Big Bounce theories since they propose a visually evolving universe the same as the Big Bang model.

 

On the other hand, if only small young, blue-appearing galaxies with minimal metallicity were instead observed at these farthest distances (with no old appearing large galaxies), then all theories and hypothesis proposing a much older or infinite aged universe without cycling, would also most likely be wrong.