Infinite universe?

[tommyboy605182]

first of all hello to everyone, i'm new here. i am glad i found this board, i recently became very interested in cosmology after reading the book "Show Me God" by Fred Heeren.

my question is, is there any true PROOF against an ageless universe? i have been involved in a debate with an atheist on facebook (i have a lot of free time, lol) and he consistently argues that although the universe as we know it had a beginning, the energy it contains is timeless. he cites the laws of thermodynamics, stating that it is impossible for energy to have an end or a beginning. i have been able to shoot down his arguments for a cyclic universe and a multiverse, however i can't seem to find any sources that acknowledge this particular belief (that energy is timeless). insight would be greatly appreciated, thanks!

[Canuckster1127]

The assumption that energy was timeless would only apply if the conditions that make it appear so in the context of this present universe were constant and remained so within what ever parallel or previous universes or multiverses.

You cannot prove a negative in this realm so the onus would be upon him, not you, to demonstrate that his claim had objective proof to support his assertion. As a functional theory hypothosizing this singularity has yet to be developed, at best he has a working theory with some unproved assertions contained within.

[tommyboy605182]

The assumption that energy was timeless would only apply if the conditions that make it appear so in the context of this present universe were constant and remained so within what ever parallel or previous universes or multiverses.

You cannot prove a negative in this realm so the onus would be upon him, not you, to demonstrate that his claim had objective proof to support his assertion. As a functional theory hypothosizing this singularity has yet to be developed, at best he has a working theory with some unproved assertions contained within.

the only "objective proof" that he offers is the conservation of energy, that because energy can never be created or destroyed, it is timeless.

[Canuckster1127]

The assumption that energy was timeless would only apply if the conditions that make it appear so in the context of this present universe were constant and remained so within what ever parallel or previous universes or multiverses.

You cannot prove a negative in this realm so the onus would be upon him, not you, to demonstrate that his claim had objective proof to support his assertion. As a functional theory hypothosizing this singularity has yet to be developed, at best he has a working theory with some unproved assertions contained within.

the only "objective proof" that he offers is the conservation of energy, that because energy can never be created or destroyed, it is timeless.

He may be right but that premise is not yet proven. To the extent it has been observed within this universe that is an observed premise and can be inferred as constant. However, the singularity from which this universe is expanding has not yet been sufficiently and consistly explained incorporating that presumption and so it may well prove that further observations and advances in that field will demonstrate something more at work in that "beginning" or transition.

Attempting to draw a conclusion in terms of the existence of non-existence of God from that basis is a complete non-sequitur.

[frankbaginski]

Einstein pointed out we live in space-time, the two are related to each other. So time as we know it came into existence when the universe was created. With this in mind you can view the current state of astrophyiscs as a search to find if the universe had a start or not. The models that I have seen are not very good and they break down. There are huge assumptions in them that I don't feel are justified at all. The one thing that physics has shown us is the fine workings of the universe are simple once understood. The models for the unverse are way too complex and are a patchwork of bridges over large areas of no knowledge. I try and stay out of this fight.

In my post on "Young Earth Old Universe" I have put forward a model (not mine) for the creation of the universe. It of course is closer to scripture than what is taught in school. The data used in this model is the same as that found in others. If you end up argueing a model against another you end up argueing the assumptions which come from basic beleifs. It all boils down to the conflict between naturalism and the supernatural. One side rejects supernatural events and the other side allows them. The side with the limited view can never see the universe as I do. Just know there is no way to win an argument like this.

What I do is try and guide the argument into worldviews. This is the area where you can begin to get the other person to ask the basic questions of life "why are we here".

The other thing you can do is follow the causation. Rain falls but is caused by evaporation from the ocean. A song is heard but came from a writer. A painting is viewed but came from a painter. The creator of the song or the painting is not the song or the painting. The creator exist outside of the creation. The universe is the same, the cause came from outside the universe. If you can't get them to this point then it may be a waste of time. However, if others are listening to the argument then keep making your case and basically ignore their responce. Your strength of argument may start some to question a deterministic world view. This is what it is all about.

[Man from the Neptune]

Not that I am aware of; most cosmologists believe that the universe is expanding to fast to turn in on itself, thus an oscillating universe is impossible. In my opinion scientific evidence points towards a beginning roughly 14 billion years ago. Some have infered a multiverse but it is just a theoretical explanaition for the universe's existence and it has no emperical evidence. I've heard some infer a finite eternal universe in which the matter before the Big Bang existed in a timeless state of absolute singularity but that is only another assumption just as good as the assumption that God was involved in it.

Just thought I'd add that

[frankbaginski]

Neptune,

Yes most cosmologist do believe in the big bang, in a similar way most scientist believed (at one time) mice came from old clothes. I am sure in the future the big bang will be modified.

In the post on Young earth old universe I describe a model which takes the data of redshift and interprets it in a very different way. I believe the universe is actually shrinking slightly at the moment.

When it comes to belief in science a concensus view means nothing. The consensus has been wrong way too many times in the past. Lining up experts on one side of an argument to make ones case is the same. The only way to argue the issues in science is with the data. A lot of data about leading edge science is on the net. I have to say that a lot of it has been filtered. Serious study requires reading source material.

I sidestepped mainstream science some years ago. I now have a critical eye when it comes to any new announcements of science.

[Kurieuo]

Do you believe the universe is expanding frank?

[frankbaginski]

If you follow the redshift data and cross reference it with the changes in electron mass then the main part of the shrinking universe occured before 2300 BC. Since this time the shrinking was very slow and now we are in a period of slow oscillation. The oscillation is centered around an almost settled universe. This means that the speed of light and things like the rest mass of an electron can be positive or negative depending on what year you pick. I think we are in a slow down period at the moment.

[Kurieuo]

If you follow the redshift data and cross reference it with the changes in electron mass then the main part of the shrinking universe occured before 2300 BC. Since this time the shrinking was very slow and now we are in a period of slow oscillation. The oscillation is centered around an almost settled universe. This means that the speed of light and things like the rest mass of an electron can be positive or negative depending on what year you pick. I think we are in a slow down period at the moment.

So you do believe the universe is shrinking??

[johnt]

The universe as we know it lives and dies every second. New stars are formed and old stars die. Our Sun is said to be in a period of equilibrium or basically middle age. As it gets older there will be dramatic events on our earth as there were dramatic events in it's infancy. How long until the death of our Sun is an educated guess to around another 4.5 to 5 billion years. A point that no one ever discusses though although it is agreed about the universe being created by the so called Big Bang in a blink of an eye it is also very fragile and orchestrated and it can also end in a blink of an eye. Tommyboy you might use this in your debate with you atheist friend, since engery is infinite so is your soul for when your body dies your energy (soul) is released therefore it is forever and cannot be destroyed although that energy can be changed to matter and vice versa. Since he does believe in a beginning and however that may have happened, I for one would not want to be part of that enegy that could be used to form a rock (matter) or fire (energy) by the One who set the Big Bang in motion which started both time and space as we know it.

[frankbaginski]

Kurieuo ,

You are right, I did not answer your question. I was talking about the trees when I should have been talking about the forest. Here is the answer as I know it. The fabric of space was stretched out when it was created. But you can't view this as size or length. Think of of as tension. The actual size of the universe may not have changed after it was created. The tension in space makes some physical quantities set at some value. As the tension changes these physical quantities change with it. So if you were to measure the distance across the universe after it was created and then as it was relaxing you may get the same distance. To help in this view we know that a large gravity source can warp space and cause a gravity well. The planets go around the sun in this manner. The gravity well bends a straight line into a circle. So to use distance measurements may not be meaningfull. So the short answer is I think it is static.

[KrisW]

my question is, is there any true PROOF against an ageless universe?

Yes...it's called the Big Bang Theory, which says the Universe came into being at a past time via an 'external causal agent'.

The 2K background radiation predicted by the Big Bang Theory was confirmed in the early 1990's.

[tommyboy605182]

my question is, is there any true PROOF against an ageless universe?

Yes...it's called the Big Bang Theory, which says the Universe came into being at a past time via an 'external causal agent'.

The 2K background radiation predicted by the Big Bang Theory was confirmed in the early 1990's.

yes, i understand the big bang theory. the problem is that the big bang theory proves that OUR universe had a beginning, it does not prove an absolute beginning. well, for me it does, but for a stubborn atheist who refuses to "let a divine foot in the door," it doesn't; there could have been millions of universes before ours came into being, or perhaps a multiverse. what im trying to show this guy on facebook is that infinity simply does not exist within our universe. ever since hubble's discovery of the expanding universe, scientists have been trying to find a way around the "creation event," a way to somehow show that the universe did not have an absolute beginning.

[KrisW]

Well, it's nothing but pure speculation as to whether anything existed before the Universe was created by the Big Bang.