Is the Universe eternal? This, of course is a metaphysical question, as no one has any insight about it.
However, the phenomena of the redshift/blueshift traits of cosmological movements is a very likely source of information alluding to a stable Universe, if, and only when BOTH assets are included into one's interpretation of the cosmological facts.
[en.m.wikipedia.org]
1. The moving ahead/falling behind tendency of moving objects are very telling of the observations so far by astronomers, yet the scientists seem to overlook the blueshift aspect of moving galaxies.
When we travel the interstate highways we experience two tendencies of movement. There are indeed cars that move ahead of our own vehicle. Yet, what about those cars that fall behind our own vehicle? Can we also describe a Universe that has the same inconsistent behavior of those galaxies? The basic evidence of Universal movements includes both ahead/behind tendencies, or, redshift/blueshift frequencies accorded to bodies of galaxies and other objects.
Redshift, in cosmology, is when an object (galaxy, etc.) is moving away from the observer on Earth. The blueshift, however, is when an object moves toward an observer (on Earth); also, electromagnetic radiation moves into a gravitational field. This is exactly like the Interstate example, above. How then can both movements be occuring at the same time? If both exist, then only the observer's interpretation can be in question; doubt occurs as to the "expected" expansion of the Universe, as a prerequisite to explaining a "beginning" of the Universe. It is obvious that the birth and ultimate death condition here on Earth has shrouded our clarity of perceptions about the nature of the Universe.
The stable model of the Universe is very plausible (not even slightly proven), whereby the "coming and going" status of objects indicate a wholesome aggregate of elemental parts and cosmological arrays of perpetual motion, just like a superhighway of cosmic entities in the normal fashion of expansion and detraction.
2. Density is a hard choice of observed elemental facts. How can molecules be condensed when so much matter exists to be accounted? It is unreasonable to conjecture that super-density has, or has ever existed. The mechanics of old, used cars again explains the incontestable fact that there is a limit to density. Cars in a trash field for broken parts are mechanically crushed into cubes which are not indefinately "tiny" in size but are relatively squashed into cubes that are relative to their material composition.
3. Finally, the human factor: it is very likely that interpretations of observations are incorrect. A notion is, after all, a notion. Questions exist to re-engender a theory. If the observations are in contradiction, then the evidence is inconsistent with the expected preconceived ideologies of the observers. Only full disclosure of the observable facts can remedy the actual evidence as presented to the observer. #1, above, conveys the idea of unilateral movement in a variable scenario of the actual cosmological movements.
According to the "expected" assumptions of some cosmologists the "expansion" theory has compelling evidence of the redshift phenomena. However, no true scientist should have a preconceived notion of the observable facts. It is unprofessional and irresponsible to conclude only one aspect of the observed evidence, in which the blueshift phenomena also exists and influences cosmological effects.
The blueshift phenomena is just as vibrant and valid as the redshift phenomena. In fact, it is a testament of a very stable Cosmos. Both states of movement indicate a continual pattern of "coming" and "going". This is the proof of a stable and continuous Universe.
As far as metaphysical ideas are concerned, the stability of the Universe is the most evidential trait of continuity and prolonged existence. I suspect that Uniformity will be seen as more evidential than the current Big Bang theory.
The reason that this entry is in the mysteries board is because the red/blue shift phenomena has yet to be accessed and confirmed by legitimate observation and interpretation by scientists. I can only address the discrepancy and to make the allegation that "movement" may have a greater influence upon current thinking about the nature of the Universe. It is a single piece of the puzzle that has been noted here.
However, the phenomena of the redshift/blueshift traits of cosmological movements is a very likely source of information alluding to a stable Universe, if, and only when BOTH assets are included into one's interpretation of the cosmological facts.
[en.m.wikipedia.org]
1. The moving ahead/falling behind tendency of moving objects are very telling of the observations so far by astronomers, yet the scientists seem to overlook the blueshift aspect of moving galaxies.
When we travel the interstate highways we experience two tendencies of movement. There are indeed cars that move ahead of our own vehicle. Yet, what about those cars that fall behind our own vehicle? Can we also describe a Universe that has the same inconsistent behavior of those galaxies? The basic evidence of Universal movements includes both ahead/behind tendencies, or, redshift/blueshift frequencies accorded to bodies of galaxies and other objects.
Redshift, in cosmology, is when an object (galaxy, etc.) is moving away from the observer on Earth. The blueshift, however, is when an object moves toward an observer (on Earth); also, electromagnetic radiation moves into a gravitational field. This is exactly like the Interstate example, above. How then can both movements be occuring at the same time? If both exist, then only the observer's interpretation can be in question; doubt occurs as to the "expected" expansion of the Universe, as a prerequisite to explaining a "beginning" of the Universe. It is obvious that the birth and ultimate death condition here on Earth has shrouded our clarity of perceptions about the nature of the Universe.
The stable model of the Universe is very plausible (not even slightly proven), whereby the "coming and going" status of objects indicate a wholesome aggregate of elemental parts and cosmological arrays of perpetual motion, just like a superhighway of cosmic entities in the normal fashion of expansion and detraction.
2. Density is a hard choice of observed elemental facts. How can molecules be condensed when so much matter exists to be accounted? It is unreasonable to conjecture that super-density has, or has ever existed. The mechanics of old, used cars again explains the incontestable fact that there is a limit to density. Cars in a trash field for broken parts are mechanically crushed into cubes which are not indefinately "tiny" in size but are relatively squashed into cubes that are relative to their material composition.
3. Finally, the human factor: it is very likely that interpretations of observations are incorrect. A notion is, after all, a notion. Questions exist to re-engender a theory. If the observations are in contradiction, then the evidence is inconsistent with the expected preconceived ideologies of the observers. Only full disclosure of the observable facts can remedy the actual evidence as presented to the observer. #1, above, conveys the idea of unilateral movement in a variable scenario of the actual cosmological movements.
According to the "expected" assumptions of some cosmologists the "expansion" theory has compelling evidence of the redshift phenomena. However, no true scientist should have a preconceived notion of the observable facts. It is unprofessional and irresponsible to conclude only one aspect of the observed evidence, in which the blueshift phenomena also exists and influences cosmological effects.
The blueshift phenomena is just as vibrant and valid as the redshift phenomena. In fact, it is a testament of a very stable Cosmos. Both states of movement indicate a continual pattern of "coming" and "going". This is the proof of a stable and continuous Universe.
As far as metaphysical ideas are concerned, the stability of the Universe is the most evidential trait of continuity and prolonged existence. I suspect that Uniformity will be seen as more evidential than the current Big Bang theory.
The reason that this entry is in the mysteries board is because the red/blue shift phenomena has yet to be accessed and confirmed by legitimate observation and interpretation by scientists. I can only address the discrepancy and to make the allegation that "movement" may have a greater influence upon current thinking about the nature of the Universe. It is a single piece of the puzzle that has been noted here.