Oscillating Universe Theory

WingZero0 · Post by **WingZero0** » Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:48 pm

Hey,

I'm trying to debate an athiest and show him that God can exist. However he has used the oscillating universe theory which says that the universe expands and then due to gravity contracts and when it does that it reverses time so when it gets back to the central point all the energy will be present and the universe will expand again ad infinitum.

I looked all over to try and find any refutation of this theory and all I found was the accelerating universe. All that said was the universe's expansion is accelerating faster than calculations. However, the athiest said that electromagnetism is responsible for the acceleration and eventually black holes will form and create a stronger gravity pull that in time will overrule electromagnetism and will cause the universe to contract.

Is this correct? Any help on the issue would be greatly appreciated.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:53 pm

I'm trying to debate an athiest and show him that God can exist. However he has used the oscillating universe theory which says that the universe expands and then due to gravity contracts and when it does that it reverses time so when it gets back to the central point all the energy will be present and the universe will expand again ad infinitum.

So the 2nd law of Thermodynamics is false? There is either energy lost, or the 2nd law of Thermodyanmics is false. ALSO, the impossibility of an actual infinite number-look up Kalum argument (Craig and Moreland talk about it).

Also we know there's not enough mass to cause the universe to collapse as I recall.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:54 pm

Also demand him to show where there's any evidence for what he's claiming.

August · Post by **August** » Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:02 pm

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/univers ... /osci.html

http://www.doesgodexist.org/JanFeb99/Os ... verse.html

WingZero0 · Post by **WingZero0** » Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:18 pm

So the 2nd law of Thermodynamics is false? There is either energy lost, or the 2nd law of Thermodyanmics is false.

Well he quotes Hawkings in his book A Brief History of Time who said that as the universe contracts, everything goes in reverse and energy is refueled.

August · Post by **August** » Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:52 pm

WingZero0 wrote:
So the 2nd law of Thermodynamics is false? There is either energy lost, or the 2nd law of Thermodyanmics is false.
Well he quotes Hawkings in his book A Brief History of Time who said that as the universe contracts, everything goes in reverse and energy is refueled.

Hang on, ask him for the reference. It's been a while since I've read the book, but as I recall the context of Hawkings quote was to refute the oscillating universe proposed by some Russian scientists.

I may be wrong though, so don't quote me yet.

Furthermore, because the oscillating universe model proposes longer and bigger oscillations contraction/expansion to accommodate the conservation of entropy needed to make the model work, it still leads to an absolute beginning, something that defeats the whole purpose of the oscillating model.

WingZero0 · Post by **WingZero0** » Mon Feb 27, 2006 10:06 pm

He gave me this link to show that time travel is possible and thus the 2nd law of thermodynamics being reversed is possible.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/time/through.html

He also said that its not constantly getting bigger and thus it does not need a beginning since its infinitely oscillating. He also said Hawkings advocates a complete self-sustaining oscilating universe theory.

And of course he called creationism pseudoscience by its very defintion and blah blah blah but thats a different thing.

August · Post by **August** » Mon Feb 27, 2006 10:16 pm

WingZero0 wrote:He gave me this link to show that time travel is possible and thus the 2nd law of thermodynamics being reversed is possible.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/time/through.html

He also said that its not constantly getting bigger and thus it does not need a beginning since its infinitely oscillating. He also said Hawkings advocates a complete self-sustaining oscilating universe theory.

And of course he called creationism pseudoscience by its very defintion and blah blah blah but thats a different thing.

Did he provide references, or is he merely asserting things?

Here is the reference for the oscillations getting bigger:
I. D. Novikov and Ya. B. Zeldovich, "Physical Processes near Cosmological Singularities," Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 11 (1973): pp. 401-02; Joseph Silk, The Big Bang, 2d ed. (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1989), pp. 311-12..

Hawking does not advocate that:
p139 (BHT): "When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities . . . In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to space-time and at which the laws of science breaks down."

BGoodForGoodSake · Post by **BGoodForGoodSake** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:14 am

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:
I'm trying to debate an athiest and show him that God can exist. However he has used the oscillating universe theory which says that the universe expands and then due to gravity contracts and when it does that it reverses time so when it gets back to the central point all the energy will be present and the universe will expand again ad infinitum.
So the 2nd law of Thermodynamics is false? There is either energy lost, or the 2nd law of Thermodyanmics is false.

The second law of thermodynamics does not state that energy is lost, only disapated. A cosmic crunch would not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote: the impossibility of an actual infinite number-look up Kalum argument (Craig and Moreland talk about it).

Also we know there's not enough mass to cause the universe to collapse as I recall.

KMart is correct current measurements seem to indicate that there is insufficience mass to cause expansion to slow down and cause a cosmic crunch.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:41 am

First you disagree with me, then you agree with me. That's a first.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:54 am

The second law of thermodynamics does not state that energy is lost, only disapated. A cosmic crunch would not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

And, I know that energy isn't lost, it's just made unavailable.

BGoodForGoodSake · Post by **BGoodForGoodSake** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:48 am

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:First you disagree with me, then you agree with me. That's a first.

I didn't know we were dealing with opinions here.

=P

AttentionKMartShoppers · Tue Feb 28, 2006 1:12 pm

You know me, always looking for acceptance...

BGoodForGoodSake · Post by **BGoodForGoodSake** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:49 pm

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:You know me, always looking for acceptance...

I accept you,

I have no choice, I can't change you.
=P

P.S.
I like your sig.

aa118816 · Post by **aa118816** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 3:24 pm

The oscillating universe theory has been largely discarded by most cosmologists due to many factors mentioned here and others like the fine tuning of the second law of thermodynamics. Without the second law of TD, life would not be possible. In fact, the Second Law is so finely tuned that it rules out the oscillating universe theory. The structure of the Big Bang is so finely tuned, that we can see the OU is impossible. For instance, the total observed entropy in the universe is about 10 to the 88th whereas the number of baryons seems to hover at about 10 to the 80th. (these are estimates, but very good estimates based on our current observational abilities). In the collapsing cycle of the OU, we would see entropy closer to 10 to the 123rd. This is a huge difference and atheist cosmologists like Lawrence Krauss and Zeldovich have stated that a multicycle universe may have an infinite future (in heat death), but a finite past.

Paul Davies also says, "The stock of energy in the universe is finite...this is an example of the SL of TD which predicts it is in a one way slide of degeneration towards a final state of entropy." He goes on to futher conclude that the universe cannot be infinite and therefore is finite.

Also, Hawking does not beclieve in an oscillating universe, he had proposed a universe with no beginning, just with a rounded edge. He has recently stated that this theory is nothing more than a mathematical excercise that has no correspondence to reality.

Also, arguing that the 2nd law prohibits life from forming misses the point that most likely, God set the Universe up with the Second Law as the most incredible fine tuning property without which, life could not exist at all. Also, life forms can harness energy and become more complex due to the fine tuning of their DNA which is programmed to harvest energy.

Regards
Dan