In the book, 'Neophilia' by Lyall watson, that I am reading at the moment, it talks about how the universe could have been made and gives a theory from steven hawking.

It tells you to imagine a sphere. At the top of the sphere there is the north pole. You draw a circle around the sphere, and this circle represents the beginnings of our universe; the stage in which the 'big bang' theory may have come into play. You continue drawing cirles around the shere, moving down. Notice that the circles are becoming larger, and thus the universe is expanding.

The circles become larger and larger, untill you reach the equator of the sphere. Now something interesting happens. The circles begin to get smaller. Smaller and smaller, untill, the universe is reduced to nothingness once more; another singularity.

This is a cycle, an organic theory. The universe has a beginning and an end, but is continuous, so the universe is alive in that it seems to breath in and out and keeps bouncing back.

I don't know if I particularly beleive this theory but it sure is an interesting concept. The earth could be part of a cycle that has been repeated millions of times, and will be repeated for eternity. One would wonder; how did the universe turn out during previous cycles? Did life manage to sprout then? Was earth a fluke?

Interesting. What are your opinions on this?

The contracting of the universe that you are referring to I think is commonly known as The Big Cruch, i.e the point at which the thrust that keeps the universe expanding (although no-one knows what that thrust is) runs out, and it contracts, like elastic.
I might post in this after wednesday, there's a guy who's a specialist in the history of the universe coming to give a talk at our school. It should be interesting.
Very interesting theory though, it seems to make sense, although where would all then energy go? Because according to the laws of Physics...energy can't be created or destroyed. Just like the whole what came before the Big Bang question...because there can't have been nothing. Something cannot come from nothing, it's impossible.
Great thread

The thing with the universe is all you can ever have is theories. We will never be able to prove any of them one way or another. It's mind-boggling.

This is a very interesting theory. Much more than the one that states the Universe will forever keep expanding until all matter disaggregates, thus ending the Universe. I prefer the BigBang-BigCrunch, but it seems there will not be a BigCrunch. According to the latest studies, the Universe is not only expanding, as it expansion is growing in speed - the was a big expansion after the bang, then it slowed and now it's increasing exponentially. It seems there's this 'Black Energy', that scientist have not yet discovered, responsible for the increase of speed, and apparent inaction of gravity (that would cause the contraction).

I'm no expert, but i think black holes have not played their part. Black holes distort the space-time fabric, grabbing even light, and there ara millions of them all over the universe, destroing parts of it, just like water runs down the drain. When all theses black holes, roaming around and the one inside galaxy cores, merge and become swallowing everything, bye bye 'Black Energy'. I think ...

About the Big Bang - Big Crunch theory, in India it is believed that this universe, is just the Nth version of THE universe; Nietzche, postulated the theory of Eternal Return, similar to the previous, but in this one all versions of the universa are equal. So, i've already wrote this who knows how many times.

Finally, i saw a show on BBC last saturday, where i learned about Multiverse. It seems our universe is just a bubble among millions of other bubbles, and it was formed when 2 of them collided ... sounds strange, but believable although i am unable to give you more that this.

There is also another theory about how the universe will supposedly end, it's kind of interesting. This is said to be the most probable one. Since the sum of Omega and lambda is believed to be 1.0, the universe is in the state of inflation. ( Omega and lambda are the parameters that measures the average density of mater in the universe.) Saying that it will expand forever until the temperature reaches near absolute zero which would result in ending all life forms. (If the Omega and lambda is greater than 1, then the end would result in the big crunch.) They are both very interesting concepts, Either way seems as if we are screwed.

Yeah... Unless of coure our spaceflight evolved dramatically, perhaps with the help of aliens, and we found another planet in a distant universe with a safer cycle.

Great!~!

Not only are we screwed, we are going to get screwed again, and agian, and agian, etc, etc, etc.

Yeah, if everything were perfect it would be a sphere. Things aren't a perfect sphere though. It has probably been morphed into something more like one of those blow up balloons that you can make into balloon animals. The sphere could have even been bent into a pretzel that has ridges. What happens to the circles then?

Funny thing.

There is a cycle in end of the Universe theories. The "heat death" model (what Discordia introduced here) was based on classical thermodynamics: in a "closed" system, eventually there is no difference in temperature anywhere, heat cannot flow, and so NOTHING happens. The Universe (all that is) is a closed system (nothing is outside of it), so it runs down.

That was a 19th Century thing. Then, we learned a little bit more, and it turns out there's another way to end it all: the big crunch.

Then, along comes the incomparable Stephen Hawking, and says wait - a big crunch might beget a new big bang.

Enter Hamster. If Hawking is right, then the cycle of Universes is a closed system. If, in addition, classical thermodynamics is right, then the cycle of Universes, too, will run down.

And so we return to our beginnings. The three laws of thermodynamics: you can't win, you can't break even, and you can't quit the game.

We are screwed. But you knew that anyway.

interesting.

but why does everything have such definite edges?
a hard beginning, and a hard end?

the teachings of creator ( if you so believe ) in everyday day life does not show this to be a constant.
some things do begin hard, and end hard, but for the most part are much more subtle.
i see a lot of insight into what hawkings is saying, but why does it have to have a start and an end?

we as a race living a small blip of of time on a cosmic scale and living only within what we precieve, length, width, depth, time.
we can surmise on what we experience in this realm based on our preconceived notions.
so a ball is out of the ordinary, but still within the confines of what we precieve.

the notion of all expanding to a point and then beginning to collapse on itself is the beginning of a cycle.
but what is to say that cycle had a beginning? ( big bang )
who is to say it has an end? ( big crunch )

we are only looking at what we can see, a small blip on a cosmic scale. during which we see the expansion of the universe.
we have not had sufficient time to observe the nature of a cycle on the cosmic scale.
so weather or not it will begin to collapse is just merely theory.
as well as running out of steam till it reaches equilibrium.
just theories, based on what we precieve.

what if we take this ball that hawkings speaks of. take the north pole, and the south pole and pull them together in the middle?

there, now that you have this image in your mind.
it becomes a doughnut. no beginning, and no end.
as the lines move around the doughnut, they expand, then contract, then expand, then contract.
no beginning, no end.
and where in the cycle you sit, it is either expanding, expanding faster, then slower, then faster again.
or contracting in the same fashion.

moving in a cycle such as this introduces conservation of energy.
no loss, no gain. just movement from one point to another.

but then again.
i could just be crazy and babbling to myself.