(October 12, 2009 at 3:09 pm)Saerules Wrote: I don't insist that this one is necessarily cyclic (The original is however)... I simply have not seen sufficient proof (imo) of this universe not being cyclic. I for one, do not see how the universe's expansion accelerating and expanding is in any way conclusive. I still need more evidence, which should be on its way in the coming decade.
It would be interesting for people to take my suggestions of things like "we might just be a computer simulation" seriously
Well considering Entropy (The amount/categories of information required to describe the entire universe) is increasing (Growing in complexity) then this universe must be an isolated system, therefore finite, not cyclic.
We can also tell the universe had a beginning by measuring the redshift of type 1a supernovae (specifically 1a, it is an extremely bright candle, giving measurements from great distances), calculating the rate of expansion and extrapolating backwards to a finite point of first-expansion(what happened prior to this cannot be stated with any certainty, but we know with a degree of certainty what happened after the million trillion trillion trillionth of a second). We can also determine that the universe is not going to collapse (not cyclic) from the exponential expansion of the universe.
Fairly conclusive that this universe is not the original.
.
