If we assume for a minute that there is something wrong with the current thinking that the expansion of the universe is accelerating and assume that it is in fact still decelerating and will eventually stop and then begin the Big Crunch, the Big Bang in reverse, at the end of the Big Crunch could some fundamental instability be reached that would trigger another Big Bang? If this were the case then "start of Big Bang to end of Big Crunch" could represent just one cycle in an infinite series of such cycles, such that the universe, in one form or another, has always existed and will always exist? Meaning that there was no beginning and there will be no end, and time is infinite in both directions. No need for a creator or anything like that.

Essentially your describing a cyclic model. This is currently a possibility even with current research it is still viable.

If we assume for a minute that there is something wrong with the current thinking that the expansion of the universe is accelerating and assume that it is in fact still decelerating

Cannot be "still decelerating" because that would mean that the rate of expansion is diminishing which would mean that the cosmological redshift is diminishing which....is contradicted by astronomical observations.

 

Cannot be "still" because it never was to begin with. .

Edited January 10, 20179 yr by zztop

This is true to measurement as the deceleration parameter q is negative. Yet doesn't preclude the possibility of lambda changing at some future time.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceleration_parameter

 

Though the best of our measurements show its incredibly constant lol. I have seen some papers showing the possibility of an evolving lambda. I don't consider them strong enough to deter from the base LCDM model which has Lambda as being constant at this time. Latest research has lambda extremely constant afiak. Particularly as the Planck datasets strongly preclude a dynamical cosmological constant and has found no evidence of such.

 

As we still haven't figured out lambda we can't rule out that possibility.

 

Otherwise your reply is correct,

 

I should also point out that the Hubble parameter is decreasing but this shouldn't be confused with the deceleration/acceleration parameter as long as lambda stays constant the Hubble parameter will always be positive and greater than zero. Lambda will continue to dominate

Edited January 10, 20179 yr by Mordred

"Was the start of the Big Bang really the beginning of time?"

 

It was the beginning of time in our region. We don't know what exists beyond our visual horizon. So there could be other big bangs far away that have their own time scale and beginning of THEIR time.

Edited January 12, 20179 yr by Airbrush

There is a singularity in the classical view. (This may be removed by a quantum theory of gravity.)

 

That is the "beginning of time" in the same way that the north pole is the beginning of south.

It could have been the beginning of time but not the beginning of the universe; the emergence of time may have occurred at the start of the BB. There are many as-yet evidence-free scenarios.

Could The Universe Have Begun From A Big Bounce?

The speculation advanced here regarding a cyclic universe, without the singular concept of an initial big bang, is not very far from reality.

 

You might learn a lot by studying some recent theory in that category, if you search for scientific articles with a title Realistic Nonsingular Cosmology.

The speculation advanced here regarding a cyclic universe, without the singular concept of an initial big bang, is not very far from reality.

 

You might learn a lot by studying some recent theory in that category, if you search for scientific articles with a title Realistic Nonsingular Cosmology.

Who's it written by?

The speculation advanced here regarding a cyclic universe, without the singular concept of an initial big bang, is not very far from reality.

How do you know what reality is (with such confidence)?

How do you know what reality is (with such confidence)?

Oh, let's not get into philosophy please.

Oh, let's not get into philosophy please.

 

It's an important thing to keep in mind, because it shows a limitation of science.

Who's it written by?

 

Who? Who?

 

Could be a Lepton like me..

 

Or a Genius like you!

How do you know what reality is (with such confidence)?

 

I guess you spent a very long time studying old textbook material ..

 

If you wanna build confidence, you must start exploring new ideas, perhaps on your own,,

 

You'll see what you can come up with..

 

I guess you spent a very long time studying old textbook material ..

 

If you wanna build confidence, you must start exploring new ideas, perhaps on your own,,

 

You'll see what you can come up with..

So you think it is better to make stuff up (and claim it is "reality") rather use evidence-based science?