ok, i am no astrologer or astronomer or whatever, but i have been thinking about this in various degrees...

ok, we have theorized in science that absolute zero is possible, but we cannot quite reach it, and as you know absolute zero stops particles (does this mean it stops time too?)....now, considering the universe despite it being infinite as we may think, it might be possible that in any one direction there is a last star, and as you travel away from a star it gets colder and colder, now given the emmense size of the universe could it be possible that after travelling so far away from a star you might reach absolute zero, hence stoping particale (time as well?) and hence finding the end of the universe?

also, the universe consists of galaxies, which as far as i understand at the center lies the ultimate star, or black hole if you like, and it is this black hole which sucks in the galaxy, now it is theorized that after the black hole is filled it explodes into another galaxy, but could it just merely explode the same galaxy for that is what it sucked in? and as a result the same galaxy, the same lives, organisms, and what not will be recreated? hence providing a theory for time being circular as opposed to linear...

also, if indeed a balck hole sucks in stuff, i saaw this show that theorized that smaller stars are sucked in faster as opposed to bigger stars, if this is the case consider two black holes, if one black hole seemed to be stronger than the other, would it then suck in the other black hole as well.....what would happen as a result?

a few more inquiries, according to physics spontaneous combustion deos indeed exists but has no explanation....now, i assume we all seen MIB, and so consider the idea that a universe exists under your fingernail, and then assume that the black hole suck everything in and explodes, hence causing spontaneous combustion....

one more thought, if indeed time is circular within galaxies, but not the overall universe for the overall universe is surrounded by absolute zero, does this not mean that time is ultimately linear?

Little lesson in Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology(not cosmotology mind you, totally different area of science), and this may end up being two posts, cause there is a lot to talk about.

#1 Black holes consist of 3 things: a gravity well, an event horizon, and a singularity where , with current theory, all matter is destroyed. So when dealing with those, through those laws of matter out the window. Now small stars are sucked in quicker than big star cause they obviosly have less matter. However in the remote chance that two supergiant starts, the biggest of all stars, that were around the same age, same size, and went supernova around the same time, all of which are all but impossible, you will get two black holes, however they are anchored to the very fabric of space, as it were, by that sinuglarity(maybe I am talk out of my ass there, but then again, I may not be)in other words, they are immobile. If one ever did manage to suck in the other, defying all mathematics, then the result would be a massive explosion due to the interaction of the singularities. What the result of that explosion would is something I care not to think about because of all the wonderful forms of radiation the black hole puts off before the matter passes the event horizon. Probably sterilizing a large part of the galaxy for a very long time.

#2 Time and absolute zero. Yes I know about absolute zero myself. All matter ceases movement, however time would continue, since it is not composed of matter. O.k. so far there are four dimensions of reality, though I bet dollars to donoughts there will be more discovered, the x axis, the y axis, the z axis(the three dimensions that make us what we are) the then the fourth time, a high level linear dimension seeing as how all for are linear because the exsist on a plane(this is why you need to take a lot of math for Astronomy and the like) To make it a bit easier to understand, imagine x,y,and z as a cube, and have time be a line through that cube. And to make everything that I have just said very simple, let me ask you this: Does time slow down when it is very cold out?No it does not, may seem like it does, but it doesn't.

#3 Galactic black holes, and "ultimate stars". O.k. there really isn't one massive star at the center of galaxies, but rather a massive conglomeration of really fucking big stars. I mean if those galaxy sized stars blew up, what would happen? However galactic black holes more than likely do exsist, there is evidence of one being in the center of our galaxy. How do they form? Well the most like formed as the galaxies were forming, hell the formations of galaxies are probably because of these black holes. However because of what happens to matter, as stated in #1, black holes normally do not blow up as a result of filling up on matter escpcially, and I know this does go against what was said in #1, which falls into conflicting theories made by the same people, the singularity of a black hole is a poin of infinite matter, akin to that of what this universe used to be, however something disturbed that matter, and it wasn't trappened in the mother of all vacuum cleaners(Yes ladies and gentlemen, it is the supersuck 2000, with the suction power of a black hole). Part of that theory is true, if the black hole did explode, it would create a galaxy, most like, but as for things being exactly the same as the were before, nah. Matter maybe matter no matter what form it is, but matter never takes the same path, at least I think that is how you put it. I'm not sure, and I think I confused myself with that one. At any rate, take away the gravity well, and you have yourself a minature big bang going on. Yes galaxies would be created. But not the same as the old ones.

Not even going to touch the spontanious combution one

#4 Time is the same everywhere. Nuff said.

Now for my what if post on this thread

Now what if these things Sixxx(sic)six has thought, and theorized about were possible. Here is my thoughts of what would be, and in order this time.

#1 No matter what, either scientifically, or what if, there is an end to the universe, for only time is infinite, and I don't give a rats ass as to what scientists say. Nuff said

#2 Answer is yes, if time were circular, time would repeat, as would events, and such.

#3 You wouldn't catch me within 1 million light years of that end result.

#4 Nah, its just your cells wanting to heat things up a bit.

#5 Time would be circular for use, linear for the rest of the external world. Now to find a way to manipulate that loop

Yes I know a lot about astronomy. I have taught almost all of my astronomy teachers something new. Pissed off one of them really bad too, she gave me a D on my big astronomy report cause of it. I'll tell you the whole story if you want to know, or better yet, if you really wanna know, look for it in the advice forum.

**ok, we have theorized in science that absolute zero is possible, but we cannot quite reach it, and as you know absolute zero stops particles (does this mean it stops time too?)....**SSS

Okies... first big hole in your theory..... Absolute Zero is not possible according to the Third Law Of Thermodynamics.... there will always be heat leak from outside sources which will prevent this from happening in a lab....

Second big hole..... Absolute Zero-0K or -459Degrees Fahrenhiet or -273 Degrees Celsius does not and never will stop the movement of all particles.... the oscillations of said particles are merely at thier lowest point possible....

We have come close to Absolute Zero.... but with our level of technology we will never make it there.... we would first have to break a Thermodynamic Law.....


**now given the emmense size of the universe could it be possible that after travelling so far away from a star you might reach absolute zero,**

No matter how far from a star you go the coldest deep space will get is 2.73 Kelvin or K... which is a ways from 0k.. and just so you have a comparison our bodies are at about 300K....

Also Scientists have just began to theorize that there may not exist an "end" to the Universe.... they do not know why yet... but it seems as if the Universe is immeasurable and infinite....

thank you for clarifying some details....

yes, and perhaps you are right that absolute zero is impossible, but a few things to remember are 1) as you say it cannot be done in a lab; 2) todays science is merely mathematical and has not yet begun to understand the true essence of things (such as why water is wet, even though it is a property of 2 Hydrogen's and 1 oxygen (2 H's right?))......or better yet, trying to explain exactly what something is, such as a person, rather than by mass, matter, and what not, but rather by incorporating all essence's of things; we have not begun to put a dent in the universe; 4) when proclaiming something as infinite, you must also proclaim that anything is possible, no matter how far fetched, but to be truly infinite anything is possible, which in this case proclaims that science as we know is basically bullshit for the time being as we understand it....

Nope.... todays science is the stepping stone for tomorrows.... without it we would still be killing each other with clubs and cooking raw strips of elephant over fires and wearing dirty animal skins..... todays science hewlps us to understand the Universe... to dismiss it so easily and readily would be to go back to those times I described.... so no... it is not BS....

And notice that I said Absolute Zero is impossible according to our Science as of yet.... not that it was absolutely Impossible....

no... when I proclaim something as infinite I do not have to also proclaim that anything is possible.... your logic is flawed....

i agree, but it is possible to get tripped along the ways, i am merely proclaiming that todays science is mathematical.....for the greeks it was gods and goddesses and the power of change and opposites, etc....a few hundred years ago it was god, but today our scienece is still relativly based on einsteins theories, newtons laws, and our own mathematical concepts of fact.....

the logic is not flawed when concerning infinity, for in infinity anything is possible, though it does not necessarily mean it will be naturally, but it must be considered possible, and thereby what is possible can be acheived if strived for (concerning today's science).....the only thing that can logically be disproved with infinity is non-existence as infinite. although i must admit i do not justly believe in infinity, but without an end anything is possible....

O.k. I am going to interject into the discussion. First off, yes the universe is immense beyond currten comprehension, making it seem infinite, but it is not, for there is finite matter to which the universe is composed. Second, aboslute zero is not impossible, mathematcially improbably yes, but never impossible. Granted there will always be a source of heat(oh and we've been within a couple thousandths of a degree by the way) to prevent us from reaching absolute zero, however heat must have a medium through which to travel. Elminate the medium, eliminate the heat, and you still have not broken a thermaldynamic law, you have bent it.

Infinity merely means without end..... it does not denote any absolute possibility at all...... we cannot comprehend anything without end as such it may seem impossible to you.... yet it is... take time for instance... it exists it always will.... time is infinite... yet that does not mean that anything is possible... that is why your logic is flawed....

Perhaps you need to keep up to date on current theories of the Universe...... currently they are beginning to think and theorize that the Universe may in fact be infinite.... there may be no fringe or end to it..... this is because they are starting to realize that there may be no end to the amount of matter that makes up the Universe.....

secondly.... the closest so far anyone has gotten to Absolute Zero is about .17K or thereabouts..... what happens is that you get heat leak..... there is no present way to divert or just magically take away the heat..... also if you eliminate the medium to eliminate the heat you have also eliminated the medium needed to reach absolute zero.... without a medium there can be no temperature..... you need some sort of medium to goto absolute zero.... which is by the way the lowest at which particles oscillate.... and even this lowered oscillation causes and produces heat....

Josh Rubak- Article on the Infinite Universe Argument

Originally, the Big Bang Theory was being used to explain the beginning of the universe. Now more and more people are seeing this huge event less as the actual beginning and more as a massive event unto itself. However, many still claim the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe and this article is evidence that this is probably a false claim.

This article will not involve any mathematical calculations or anything too difficult to understand. The purpose of this article is to explain in simple language why a "Big Bang" if they do exist, was not the creation of the universe.

First off we must explain the Big Bang Theory and then give the arguments that we will be dispelling.

The theory actually has multiple formations and differences in details depending on who you talk to. (Time frame, speed differences, etc.) However since we will be discussing the overall generalities and not the mathematical details, we won't bother with those differences.

The overall Big Bang theory states that the universe started from an incredibly dense singularity that exploded. All matter, light and energy came from that explosion. The size of the universe increases as everything expands from this explosion. The theory is that of an expanding universe, meaning that the universe as a whole is expanding, instead of a static universe meaning that matter is expanding into a statically sized space. The theory states that the size of the universe is equal to the speed of light (the item furthest away from the explosion as possible) times the age of the explosion. In simpler terms, the light created from the explosion is expanding in equal directions and they represent the edge of the universe.

That's it in a nutshell. Now let's look at the problems with this theory.

Issue #1: Problem of Size

First we must remember the definition of the term "universe". Basic definitions state: "Everything that exists anywhere", "The whole collection of existing things", "Everything stated or assumed in a given discussion", etc. That means all substance, energy and the space in between.

Regardless of the size of the universe, let's pretend that we are at the edge where the "universe defining light" is speeding its way out. Here's a simple question: Is the area 1/2 inch ahead of the light wave part of the universe? Of course it is. It's just as much a part of this universe as the space between the Sun and Earth is. Empty space is also a part of "everything that exists anywhere". No one would deny that.

OK, so if the area 1/2 inch ahead of the light wave is part of the universe, what about a foot ahead? What about a mile? What about a million miles? It's all empty space according to the theory.

Or is it? Remember, the current Big Bang theory is an expanding theory, not a static theory.

Issue #2: Problem of expanding

The expanding universe theory is often compared to a balloon being blown up. As the balloon expands the amount of space available also expands. The problem of an expanding universe is that it must expand INTO something. If there's anything to expand into, that space must, as show above, belong in the universe.

But where did all that empty space come from, and why are they forgetting that it's also part of the universe? This seems to be a case of people forgetting what the term universe really refers to.

Issue #3: Problem of time

Along with the problem of empty space, the expansion theory also runs into the problem of time.

Let's look at the empty space ahead of the light waves again. Since we have shown that the empty space ahead of the waves is a part of the universe, let us go back in time 10 seconds.

Would the same empty space still be a part of the universe 10 seconds ago? The obvious answer is yes. Well what about 10 years ago? Long before the waves reaches the empty space, it is still a part of the universe.

Taking this to it's furthest conclusion, would that same space ahead of today's light waves still be a part of this universe way back when the Big Bang happened only 1/2 second ago? The answer again is yes.

Issue #4: Problem with light at zero MPH

What does the universe look like when light is reduced to 0mph or is stopped altogether?

One of the main parts of the big bang theory is that we will eventually see a contraction. That is, eventually the expansion will stop, and the natural gravitational forces will pull everything back together over a long period of time until it is all collected into the same singularity from which the Big Bang happened and everything will start all over again. This is generally referred to as the Big Crunch.

The important consequence of this theory is that it will pull everything, matter and light back into the crunch to begin the process. If anything is left outside the Big Crunch before it explodes again, then this, by definition contradicts the concept of the Big Bang being the start of everything. Also if you consider a universe to contain a huge, but ultimately finite amount of matter and photons, then if everything is not sucked back in with each crunch, even if that amount is only an amount of photons, then the bang gets smaller and smaller with each instance. Also that would mean that the universe is equal in size to the speed of light times the time of the very first bang, if there ever was one. So the theory must maintain that the Big Crunch pulls EVERYTHING back in.

Well usually our attention is focused at the beginning (Big Bang) and the end (Big Crunch) but I think we need to look at the midpoint.

So let us imagine we are at the very outer reaches of space riding along with the furthest light waves in the universe. The time occurs when the gravity behind us is so great, we will go back to where we began.

Or will we?

In this case, the gravitational forces must act upon the furthest light waves and slow them down little by little until...

We can imagine at some point the exact moment when the light waves reach their zenith where their outward force exactly matches the gravitational pull. In other words, light is stopped altogether. I'm sure Einstein would've loved to try to consider what this scenario should be like. Maybe he did. I'm not sure.

The most realistic way around this bizarre scenario is to imagine that the pull is not precise and simply turns the light wave in a large slowing arc until they head back in the other direction.

This case creates a possible scenario where if we place ourselves in the right place at the right time (In the light waves path on their return trip) It would be possible to look forward any observe the universe forming behind us. Of course we couldn't turn around and watch the crunch at the same time since the gravity would presumably pull all tell tale light back into itself. Again, this is a very strange effect to imagine.

In either case it is hard to imagine the situation of a gravity so strong that ALL light photons would eventually be stopped before reversing course or arcing back to the beginning. This is not to say that this can't happen, but on a universe wide scale this would indeed be an interesting phenomenon to work out.

Issue #5: Problem of the edge

Another problem with an expanding universe theory is the presupposition that an edge to the universe must exist.

We have already shown that the empty space ahead of all matter exists in the universe as well, so what is at the edge of the universe? Let's look at it logically.

Let us imagine the edge of all space and time as a barrier of some kind. An impenetrable barrier enclosing all space, both empty and occupied through which matter and time can not pass. The edge of the universe must be something of this nature, right?

Any barrier, no matter what shape, size, composition, thickness, etc. always has two important sides: The side holding the contents and the opposite side, which is furthest away from the contents. Both sides always have a defined edge and therefore something on the other side of each edge. In this theoretical case, one edge touches the universe.

The simple question that should come to mind then is: What is at the other side of the barrier?

With this basic understanding, we must conclude that anything on the other side of this "barrier", even if it's pure empty space must also be a part of the universe. Even if the other side consists of space/matter that doesn't conform to any law of physics currently known to man, it does still exist, and therefore must be included in the list of "Everything that exists anywhere" and therefore is part of the universe.

This means that any imagined barrier to the universe can not exist.

OK so just for thoroughness let's take away an assumption: Let's assume that the aforementioned "barrier" has no other side. To do this it must be a barrier of infinite thickness. Anything less would create another "side" as mentioned above.

OK so we now have a barrier of unknown composition and infinite thickness enclosing the entire universe.

What's wrong with this picture? Simple: Any barrier, no matter what it's made of, how impenetrable or how thick is still a part of this universe. Even a barrier of a thickness of 10,001,000 googolplex light-years (Trust me that's VERY thick) is still a part of this universe. The fact that we can't analyze it, penetrate it or get any information on its internal composition doesn't mean that isn't a part of the universe.

So if the barrier to the universe is infinite in thickness and since the barrier is part of the universe, the universe is also infinite in size.

If no barrier to the universe exists, then the universe is still infinite in size.

If the outermost edge of the universe is completely empty space then the universe is still infinite in size.

Ultimate conclusion: The universe is infinite in size at all times.

Since this is the case, the big bang becomes not the creation of the universe, but only a major occurrence during its existence.

The birth of a tree
How old would a tree be in the year 2002 if the seed start sprouting back in 1921? The obvious answer is 81 years old.

But how old is the seed? How long did it exist before it started sprouting? How long ago was it on the tree from which it sprouted? How old is the mother tree?

The basic information given can't give us the full picture in terms of multigenerational questions.

If a Big Bang actually occurred, the most likely scenario is that is part of a cycle of explosion, contraction, explosion and contraction ad infinitum. One explosion is simply one generation of an infinite life span. In fact, my guess is that Big Bangs happen in multiple places at different times.

The second purpose of this article is to layout other truths in conjunction with dispelling the theory.

The universe is infinite in size and time
Time had no beginning and will have no end
In other words, the universe is infinite in size, has always existed and will never end.

Why do I believe these concepts? Simply because any other explanation I've found runs into many of the same problems. Mainly: "But what happened before that?"

The funny part is that most opponents to these truths I show usually don't like the concept of an infinitely sized, never-beginning, never-ending universe. Then they try to hurt these arguments with rebuttal theories involving something equally large such as an infinite sized barrier or an infinitely powered deity

in one way i agree with you, for you are justified in your rationale....however, i must also disagree with you mainly because of my teaching (although the idea i am speaking of was a justification in the existence of God) in that when considering infinity, you must declare something (loosely such as) 99.9% impossible....for with infinity, without end, anything is possible however highly unlikely.....for example, i do not believe in time travel, but given the idea of infinity it has a hint of possibility......but i must admit that i agree with you.....


i have not read this article but am now intriqued to do so, but like you said you must question what happened before that, what was the pre-beginning.....well, as it seems, this idea declares that outside the so-called "edge" exists what i would simply call a void, being filled........well, does that not thereby imply that at first existed a void, which is now being filled, but will never be full? well, concerning the idea that a void can never exist, for it is nothingness, then the idea of a something in the void crushes the term.....therefore, it would seems logical by way of term that the void no longer exist, nothingness is now something, and that when concerning something it might be subject to laws, such as size. so, instead of declaring the existence of a void pre-big-bang, we must delcare the existence of an empty universe.....for as you were mentioning with time, you can accurately say there exist a second before the big-bang, and time is the evidence of something, so the universe was already situated, but empty......so i agree that yes, the universe by these terms must already have been declared by boundries.....

so, this means that after the space is filled it must thereby by emptied....only to be re-filled.....thereby heeding to the idea behind time as circular.....so perhaps the universe is bound by time, more so than the size, for it is up to time to fill and empty....