Part of the problem is that we don't know what dark energy is, that's causing the expension to accelerate. If we did, we might be able to find out how the big crunch would work. Maybe the dark energy reverses.

Dunno.

The thing is dark energy reversing would cause the universe to go crunch, but it won't reduce the entropy of the crunching universe. When the universe finally crunch and rebound, the next universe would start out with higher entropy than the previous one.

So even if our universe is just the rebound after the crunching of the last universe, there could not have been an infinite series of previous universes before ours. The starting entropy of our universe defines the upper limit of how many universes could have existed before ours.

If ours go crunch eventually, the next universe will start with higher entropy than ours. Eventually the next universe will start with such high entropy that nothing of note could happen in it. The universe would keep on its crunch-rebound cycle, but it would from some point on become perpetually sterile.

So all this argues the era when our currently,known laws of physics applies definitely has a beginning. And the progression of crunching rebounding universes cycles in which things like life can happen has an definite end.

(August 24, 2014 at 6:04 pm)Chuck Wrote: The thing is dark energy reversing would cause the universe to go crunch, but it won't reduce the entropy of the crunching universe.

Well... Like many other things in your known laws of physics... the second law of thermodynamics applies to what's inside the universe... it may not apply to the Universe itself.... it may not apply to a certain set of what we now call singularities.
We don't know that a big crunch would wouldn't reduce the Universe's entropy.
We don't know if the whole Universe's entropy just remains constant (in accordance with the second law).
It is fun to speculate, but not particularly straightforward to verify.

(August 24, 2014 at 6:12 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(August 24, 2014 at 6:04 pm)Chuck Wrote: The thing is dark energy reversing would cause the universe to go crunch, but it won't reduce the entropy of the crunching universe.

Well... Like many other things in your known laws of physics... the second law of thermodynamics applies to what's inside the universe... it may not apply to the Universe itself.... it may not apply to a certain set of what we now call singularities.
We don't know that a big crunch would wouldn't reduce the Universe's entropy.
We don't know if the whole Universe's entropy just remains constant (in accordance with the second law).
It is fun to speculate, but not particularly straightforward to verify.

The thing is if you assume without any evidence that the laws of physics well validated in our universe no longer applies across the entire universe simply because those laws are inconvenient to your theory about the entire universe, then you reduce theorizing to wishful thinking, and your handiwork becomes no different for the special pleading used to defend Noah's ark.

(August 21, 2014 at 7:26 pm)snowtracks Wrote: let's get the rhetoric right dimwit-time-stamped, you attempted to 'refute'; and by way, i'm not posting to save, convert, or prove.

Where in my post did I say "save, convert, or prove"? It's like you have to make up more bullshit just to keep the conversation going. I guess I shouldn't be surprised with this coming from someone with a habit of making up bullshit.

Stop being such a twatshitter.

(August 24, 2014 at 6:39 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(August 24, 2014 at 6:12 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Well... Like many other things in your known laws of physics... the second law of thermodynamics applies to what's inside the universe... it may not apply to the Universe itself.... it may not apply to a certain set of what we now call singularities.
We don't know that a big crunch would wouldn't reduce the Universe's entropy.
We don't know if the whole Universe's entropy just remains constant (in accordance with the second law).
It is fun to speculate, but not particularly straightforward to verify.

The thing is if you assume without any evidence that the laws of physics well validated in our universe no longer applies across the entire universe simply because those laws are inconvenient to your theory about the entire universe, then you reduce theorizing to wishful thinking, and your handiwork becomes no different for the special pleading used to defend Noah's ark.

I didn't assume anything. I said it "may not apply".
I revealed a known ignorance.
If QM and GR don't seem to apply at singularities, why should thermodynamics?

That's a good point. We don't know what would happen at the big crunch.

I do recall an article in Sciam where the authors postulated some tests which could possibly be run to find traces of the previous universe, so I'm assuming that they must have assumed that such a crunch/bounce was a definite possibility.

(August 18, 2014 at 8:49 am)little_monkey Wrote:

(August 17, 2014 at 10:58 pm)snowtracks Wrote: landslides - a popsicle stick slanted at a 45 degree angle in a sandbox would slide sand particle from the top to the bottom. even if 2 popsicle sticks were rigged together with sand sliding down, the cause would still be greater than the effect.
the cause always proceed the effect and is always greater than the effect....greater means in every quantitative measurement.

You have a net force (cause) which is equal to ma, that is mass x acceleration (effect), and these two are equal (Newton's law of motion).

you are descripting action|reaction; cause|effect is a different principle.

Please enlighten us to the differences.

(August 26, 2014 at 11:19 pm)snowtracks Wrote:

(August 18, 2014 at 8:49 am)little_monkey Wrote: You have a net force (cause) which is equal to ma, that is mass x acceleration (effect), and these two are equal (Newton's law of motion).

you are descripting action|reaction; cause|effect is a different principle.

So basically you're just defining your bullshit into viability? Why should we care what you think about this stuff?