Pastor AIO:

When we ask how the universe will end aren't we making a big presupposition that history, and the processes that make up history, are linear (or tangential)? In other words that they start at a certain point and proceed up until another point and then stop there.

What about the possibility that process could be cyclical? Ie. that points could be revisited creating a loop that means that things will go on forever with every event recurring at some point or the other.

Pastor AIO, astute observation, and thank you. It is possible also (among other considerations) that we might be looking at a 'loop' os sorts. Cosmologists as well as particle and theoretical physicists hypothesize that the 'end' of the universe would not really be its 'end', but just a prelude to what is known as 'eternity' (as was pointed out in the OP). In a sort of way, this leaves open the question of whether the Big Bang and other cosmological theories are actually the 'beginning' of the Universe, or merely describing one among many such cosmological phases of 'beginnings' in this loop of eternity. That is, one 'end' is a singularity expressed as a prelude to another 'beginning' that will yet have an 'end' for yet another singularity to begin. .  ad infinitum.

beneli:

The bolded part akes us back to the ancient philosphical question of 'what is time?'!
My take on it is that time, is a function of the speed of light, is finite and will therefore 'end'. Infinity begins at the point where time 'ends'.

Beneli - what is eternity if not infinite and constant time?

The very idea of eternity puts a cog in the wheel of your presupposition that time can ever be said to end.

The very idea of eternity also shows time to be an intangible constant, as i earlier stated.

beneli:


I use 'fabric' because there's hardly anything else on earth we could use to describe it! Scientists have used phrases such as the 'god particle', so perhaps we should call it God. I still prefer 'fabric' for now, though.

No: you use "fabric" because you have misapprehended time as a finite, almost material thing. This is underscored by your allusion to time coming to an "end" - which is inconceivable to a mind having a slight appreciation of the intangible and self-existent nature of time.

Deep Sight:

Rather than duplicate threads i think we should simply ressurect that thread so some of the things already said there needn't be repeated.

That's a good idea; but if I understand beneli and the concerns highlighted there, it might be better to open a new thread to discuss issues of interest to particle physics such as the behaviour of electrons, particles, waves, consciousness and intelligence in matter, etc - all which might again just spiral away from the singularity and infinity discussion in the existing thread.

beneli:

The bolded part akes us back to the ancient philosphical question of 'what is time?'!
My take on it is that time, is a function of the speed of light, is finite and will therefore 'end'.

Are you suggesting to me that in the absence of light there will be no time? Recall that "light" refers to that emitted by cosmic bodies, etc?

Be very careful Beneli. . .

Deep Sight:

Altogether and absolutely wrong Viaro. I'll let Wikipedia speak, not me -

If you could grasp the Wikipedia article, good; if not, it still does not mean that time on its own is the 4th dimension - that is simply wrong. Go back and understand the key word there that you might have skipped (hint: a combination)  -

Spacetime
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In physics, spacetime (or space–time; or space/time) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space being three-dimensional and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort than the spatial dimensions. According to certain Euclidean space perceptions, the universe has three dimensions of space and one dimension of time.

Even in Euclidean geometry, time is not said to be the 4th dimension without relation to anything else: hence, my statement that "It is meaningless to describe time as the 4th dimension on its own"; that is, without relation to any other constant.

How the Universe will end according to the Bible?"

The event usually referred to by the phrase “end of the world” is described in 2 Peter 3:10: “The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.” This is the culmination of the events referred to in the beginning of that verse as “the day of the Lord,” the time when God will intervene in human history for the purpose of judgment. At that time, all that God has created, “the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1), He will destroy.

The timing of this event, according to most Bible scholars, is at the end of the 1000-year period called the millennium. During these thousand years, Christ will reign on earth as King in Jerusalem, sitting on the throne of David (Luke 1:32-33) and ruling in peace but with a “rod of iron” (Revelation 19:15). At the end of the 1000 years, Satan will be released, defeated again, and then cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:7-10). At this point, the end of the world described in 2 Peter 3:10 occurs. The Bible tells us several things about this event.

First, it will be cataclysmic in scope. The “heavens” refers to the physical universe – the stars, planets, and galaxies—which will be consumed by some kind of tremendous explosion, possibly a nuclear or atomic reaction that will consume and obliterate all matter as we know it. All the elements that make up the universe will be melted in the “fervent heat” (2 Peter 3:12). This will also be a noisy event, described in different Bible versions as a “roar” (NIV), a “great noise” (KJV), a “loud noise” (CEV), and a “thunderous crash” (AMP). There will be no doubt as to what is happening. Everyone will see and hear it because we are also told that “the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.”

Then God will create a “new heaven and a new earth” (Revelation 21:1), which will include the “New Jerusalem” (v. 2), the capital city of heaven, a place of perfect holiness, which will come down from heaven and descend to the new earth. This is the city where the saints—those whose names were written in the “Lamb’s book of life” (Revelation 13:—will live forever. Peter refers to it as “the home of righteousness” (2 Peter 3:13).

Perhaps the most important part of Peter’s description of that day is his question in verses 11-12: “Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.” For Christians, this means we should live our lives in such a way that we reflect our understanding of what is going to happen. This life is passing away quickly, and our focus should be on the new heavens and earth to come. Our “holy and godly” lives should be a testimony to those who do not know the Savior, and we should be telling others about Him so they can escape the terrible fate that awaits those who reject Him. We wait in eager anticipation for God’s “Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come” (1 Thessalonians 1:10).


JESUS IS LORD

Spacetime as a single continuum which is the 4th dimension (perhaps viaro is still wrong, I'm willing to learn):

space-time, noun:
the four-dimensional "fabric" that is the result when space and time become one
http://library.thinkquest.org/10148/glossary.shtml

Space-time: The combination of three spatial dimensions, length, width, and height, with time. The four together form the four-dimensional nature of our Universe. The effects of gravity can be regarded, as a result of the curving of space-time due to the presence of massive objects.
http://www.adlerplanetarium.org/education/resources/gravity/vocabulary.shtml

spacetime: a union of space and time originally emerging from special relativity. Can be viewed as the "fabric" out of which the universe is fashioned; it constitutes the dynamical arena within which the events of the universe take place.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/glossary.html

spacetime
The theory of relativity says that time cannot be treated absolutely separately from space, only in one observer's relative view. So space and time together describe a four dimensional universe.
http://www.cpepweb.org/main_universe/glossary.html#spacetime

Certainly, there are many sources on the net where time is usually called the 4th dimension - but if that is going to make sense even to those who make such arguments, one needs to ask: in relation to what is 'time' the 4th dimension? If time stands on its own, it is useless to speak of it as the 4th dimension in either Euclidean geometry or theoretical physics.

This is why we should endeavour to first set aside personal ideas that have no bearing in the sciences that discuss the terms we use.

Deep Sight:

Beneli - what is eternity if not infinite and constant time?

The very idea of eternity puts a cog in the wheel of your presupposition that time can ever be said to end.

The very idea of eternity also shows time to be an intangible constant, as i earlier stated.

No: you use "fabric" because you have misapprehended time as a finite, almost material thing. This is underscored by your allusion to time coming to an "end" - which is inconceivable to a mind having a slight appreciation of the intangible and self-existent nature of time.

'Time' cannot exist within 'eternity'.

So there is something wrong with your definition that 'eternity' is 'infinite' and 'constant' time. Time 'moves', and movement can only occur from one point to another. If there is no beginning and end point, then there is no movement. For time to exist there must be a 'beginning' and an 'end'. Outside of these parametres you have 'eternity', something that is not subject to 'time'. Time by it's very nature therefore CANNOT exist in eternity because eternity has no beginning nor end. Eternity is self-existent and intangible.  Time needs to exist within a medium. It can be quantified and measured. Eternity cannot be measured.

Time and light where 'created at a point when something happened that people call the 'big bang'! That's what i mean when i said that 'time' is a 'function' of the speed of light. Perhaps 'function' is not the right word then.

To clarify the above. As long as we view 'eternity' through a 4-dimensional eye piece, we will continue to confuse issues. Eternity by its very nature is outside the 4-th dimension. Time is contained in the 4th dimension.

[/quote][quote author=beneli link=topic=362859.msg5104419#msg5104419 date=1260721391]
'Time' cannot exist within 'eternity'.

There is a problem with the statement i made above. I think it is wrong for me to say that 'time cannot exist within eternity'. If i where to use the idea of the 'spacetime' bubbles, mentioned earlier, the relationship between eternity and time may be better understood. Time which is a 4-dimensional construct can dissipitate into a higher dimension.

Eternity, which is not subject to the constraints of 4-dimensional calculations, is therefore NOT time. Time, however, can be contained in eternity. One can therefore consider time as an intermission in eternity. Time is bounded by eternity on either sides.

Eternity is therefore before, within and after, time. It transverses time, yet it is not it.

viaro:

Spacetime as a single continuum which is the 4th dimension (perhaps viaro is still wrong, I'm willing to learn):

Certainly, there are many sources on the net where time is usually called the 4th dimension - but if that is going to make sense even to those who make such arguments, one needs to ask: in relation to what is 'time' the 4th dimension? If time stands on its own, it is useless to speak of it as the 4th dimension in either Euclidean geometry or theoretical physics.

This is why we should endeavour to first set aside personal ideas that have no bearing in the sciences that discuss the terms we use.

Ok Viaro, i get your point.

beneli:


So there is something wrong with your definition that 'eternity' is 'infinite' and 'constant' time. Time 'moves', and movement can only occur from one point to another. If there is no beginning and end point, then there is no movement. For time to exist there must be a 'beginning' and an 'end'.

What gives you the impression that time moves? Where have you ever seen time moving? Is it not more accurate to state that objects and people move and transit within time, and not that time itself moves?

Perhaps you missed the word "constant" in my post. By that word i was trying to suggest that time does not move at all. It is a constancy. Now things happen and objects move within that constancy. This is merely a suggestion. Do not hold me to it.

But in this suggestion lies the equation for eternity. For if time does not move, then it is perforce eternal and infinte: a static constancy within which things happen and objects move.

It seems to m eyou are constricting yourself to finite thoughts. This is why you would state that time must have an end. That is implausible. Time being intangible cannot have an end.

Time and light where 'created at a point when something happened that people call the 'big bang'!

These are scientific gymnastics which we have argued exhaustively before: neither time nor space are capable of being created at any point - and certainly not by any big bang. Unless by space you mean matter. That is not my understanding of space.

SOME say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To know that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
- Robert Frost

Deep Sight:

Ok Viaro, i get your point.

Nice to know.

Deep Sight:

What gives you the impression that time moves? Where have you ever seen time moving? Is it not more accurate to state that objects and people move and transit within time, and not that time itself moves?

Perhaps you missed the word "constant" in my post. By that word i was trying to suggest that time does not move at all. It is a constancy. Now things happen and objects move within that constancy. This is merely a suggestion. Do not hold me to it.

But in this suggestion lies the equation for eternity. For if time does not move, then it is perforce eternal and infinte: a static constancy within which things happen and objects move.

It seems to m eyou are constricting yourself to finite thoughts. This is why you would state that time must have an end. That is implausible. Time being intangible cannot have an end.

These are scientific gymnastics which we have argued exhaustively before: neither time nor space are capable of being created at any point - and certainly not by any big bang. Unless by space you mean matter. That is not my understanding of space.

Of course the fundamental issue is whether ‘time’ actually exists. I don't believe that there is such a thing as self-existent time. Time, for me, is part of a complex entity, integral to the 4th dimension. So time cannot exist on its own.

From doing a bit of amateur research using google!, i can see that some mathematical models suggest that the construct ‘time’ is in fact ‘tangible’ and that it moves forwards!. This link conceptualises time in terms of having an essence that moves and which can be measured http://www.physorg.com/news139830010.html Even Einstein talked about 'time dilation' in his famous calculations, so the question is not whether 'time' moves, but as mentioned above; it's about what exactly is this thing called time that moves! I see it as an entity that gives 3-dimensional space a context. 

However, at the level of particle physics, even that entity, ‘time’ , according to calculations and observations ceases to exist  http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time!  You see, at that level, where the borders of ‘space-time’ are breached, things behave strangely. Gravity becomes erratic, objects appear and disappear and exist in more than one space at the same time, and matter itself blurs into waveforms that we are still trying to figure out names for. At that level, space and time are almost alien concepts, and 'windows' appear in our time-and-space-bound 4th dimension through which we glimpse infinity and eternity.

So my good friend, the equation for eternity, is not that time is constant. The equation is that the entity that we call time, ceases to exist.

beneli:

From doing a bit of amateur research using google!, i can see that some mathematical models suggest that the construct ‘time’ is in fact ‘tangible’ and that it moves forwards!.

Before you tell me that i am contradicting myself, this 'movement' is always in association with something else! In other words the 'passage of time' is always in relation to a 1-2-or-3-dimensional construct. It's because of this movement that it is 'measured'. It is therefore boundaried and finite!

Beneli ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Is it conceivable that things exist outside spacetime (as defined by you), and if they do, is it conceivable that they also experience a "progression" of time. . . or events, if you like. . .

If that is the case does that not kick the bottom out of your bucket. . .

Outside 'spacetime' things exist but they don't experience 'progression' and that sort of thing. An example is particles that can be in several places at the 'same time'! Obviously within 'spacetime' that's an impossibility!

^^^ Let's leave particles aside. Particles cannot consciously experience time.

Do you believe that beings (intelligent conscious beings) exist outside spacetime (as defined by you).

If they do, do you imagine that they have a perception of a past, a present and a future.

Deep Sight:

^^^ Let's leave particles aside. Particles cannot consciously experience time.

Do you believe that beings (intelligent conscious beings) exist outside spacetime (as defined by you).

If they do, do you imagine that they have a perception of a past, a present and a future.

We don't know that 'particles' are not 'conscious', as in being 'aware' of their surrounding. That obviously is a topic for another discussion. We don't even know what 'particles' are.

Whether one believes that 'intelligent conscious beings' exist outside of space time (as defined by me), depends obviously on ones 'religious' or 'anti-religious' views. I don't shy away from the fact that i am a Christian, so subscribe to the 'faith' that there are extra-temporal intelligient 'beings'. I believe that these beings are aware of the past, the present and the future, yet are not limited by it.

Most religious folks (Christians, Moslems, Jews etc) speak of a God who is 'omnipresent'. In other words an all knowing essence that can be in different spaces (everywhere actually) at the same time. The Christians talk of him being at the 'beginning' and at the 'end' of time (at the same 'time'), so without actually understanding the science of it, we talk about an entity that is not subject to the laws of the 4th dimension. An entity that permeates 'spacetime', yet is not part of it. An entity that just 'is', irrespective of the past, present or the future. This is faithtalk now, and not science!

Sadly if God does not exist,then the universe will have a very cold death.It has now been confirmed that the expansion of the universe will not stop. Stars will eventually burn out,as energy levels in the universe take a slow nosedive.The universe will be full of black holes of dead stars which have burnt out their energy.Vaccuum fluctuations will continue for sometime but,even those eventually will grind to a halt.At the end of it all,the Universe will be a dark cold freezing place where energy levels will be almost at 0.Meaning no physical activity.But we should not worry,because by estimates of when this ios going to happen are truly staggering.between 400 billion - 1 trillion years from now.

Here is what the quran has to say about the END. Pls read objectively and no anti-islam responses.


104- On that day We will fold the heaven, like the folding of a book. Just as We initiated the first creation, We will revert it. This is Our promise. We will certainly fulfill it.
21-The Prophets, 104

I would like to bring an interesting point to your attention. In the verse it is said that God will return it to its former state. Therefore, to be able to understand the end of the universe, we have to go back to the first three chapters of our book where the beginning of Creation is described. The fact that they appear in the same sura is meaningful (The beginning is explained in the sura The Prophets; verse 30, in the same sura, verse 104, the end is explained).

30- Do not these disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were an integrated mass, which We then split, and from water We made all living things? Will they not believe even then?
21-The Prophets, 30

47- With power did We construct Heaven. Verily, We are expanding it.
51-The Dispersing, 47

We deduce from the above two verses;
1- that the universe was separated from a whole, and
2- that the universe formed following this separation is expanding.
The extraordinary miracle in these verses of the Quran was examined in the first three chapters. Now if we may be allowed to go back to the verse we quoted in this chapter, if the universe is going to regress to its original state, then:

1- the expanding universe will have to contract, and
2- the expanding universe will return to its primordial unity.

Thanks for your views. However, a point of observation:

the_seeker:

We deduce from the above two verses;
1- that the universe was separated from a whole, and

Hang on, mate. If the universe was separated from a whole, then that gives the idea that there are two entities -

      (a)  the Universe that was separated from the whole
      (b)  something from which the Universe was separated

Now please tell: what is that "something"?

^^^ Viaro, respectfully i believe it is going too far to ask him to tell what that "something" is. You know every well no human can possess such knowledge.

There are conjectures about other universes, multiverse iof intercoinnecetd universes, people talk about the universe being born from a pre-existing infinite substance, the theories abound.

Will we ever know for sure. . . well, not in this lifetime!

Deep Sight:

^^^ Viaro, respectfully i believe it is going too far to ask him to tell what that "something" is. You know every well no human can possess such knowledge.

No, it is not going too far. While I thanked him for his views in quoting the quran, I already said in the OP that this thread was not intended to be 'some religious apocalyptic drama being rehearsed in the corridors of science and philosophy'. That was why I wondered where to open the thread and just left it in the Religious board for now. Again, it is for this reason that I have not been busy quoting texts from the Bible, even though I am very well aware of what Revelation says about the apocalypse.

When people try to so confidently assert certain things, it just makes me wonder whether they have considered the discussion before making contributions. I don't have anything with his quotes from the quran; but when he went as far as "interpreting" those verses for us, he has crossed some thin line and should be ready to address questions based on his interpretations (even though we know many Muslims who will tell you that once the quran is translated into any language, it ceases to be the quran).

viaro:

No, it is not going too far. While I thanked him for his views in quoting the quran, I already said in the OP that this thread was not intended to be 'some religious apocalyptic drama being rehearsed in the corridors of science and philosophy'. That was why I wondered where to open the thread and just left it in the Religious board for now. Again, it is for this reason that I have not been busy quoting texts from the Bible, even though I am very well aware of what Revelation says about the apocalypse.

When people try to so confidently assert certain things, it just makes me wonder whether they have considered the discussion before making contributions. I don't have anything with his quotes from the quran; but when he went as far as "interpreting" those verses for us, he has crossed some thin line and should be ready to address questions based on his interpretations (even though we know many Muslims who will tell you that once the quran is translated into any language, it ceases to be the quran).

The topic of this thread is How The Universe Will End. The most popular scientific theory states that the universe will stop expanding at some point and start contracting until all matter is compressed together; THE BIG CRUNCH.
The quran  corroborate this precisely, from  the creation of the universe from a big bang to its expansion and finally it contraction to a 'crunch'.

THE BIG BANG
QURAN 21;30- Do not these disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were an integrated mass (Primeveal atom), which We then split, and from water We made all living things? Will they not believe even then?


EXPANDING UNIVERSE
QURAN 51;47- With power did We construct Heaven. Verily, We are expanding it.

THE BIG CRUNCH
QURAN 21;104- On that day We will fold the heaven, like the folding of a book. Just as We initiated the first creation, We will revert it. This is Our promise. We will certainly fulfill it.

Viaro these verses are clear and unequivocal. You posts show you are automatically assuming that the Quran (or any religious book for that matter) cannot be right on scientific matters. It took scientists only recently to confirm postulate what was already recorded in the Quran over 1,400 years ago.

viaro:

Thanks for your views. However, a point of observation:

Hang on, mate. If the universe was separated from a whole, then that gives the idea that there are two entities -

      (a)  the Universe that was separated from the whole
      (b)  something from which the Universe was separated

Now please tell: what is that "something"?

I honestly do not get your point with the 'something' or how you inferred that there are two entities

the_seeker:

The most popular scientific theory states that the universe will stop expanding at some point and start contracting until all matter is compressed together; THE BIG CRUNCH.

Quite a few are beginning to question the so called 'big crunch'. The current thinking, since Scientists starting talking about 'Dark Energy and dark matter (http://nasascience.nasa.gov/astrophysics/what-is-dark-energy), is that the universe will continue to expand until it gradually becomes swallowed up by an 'eternal' dark and cold lonliness. In other words the 'universe' as we know it, will just fade away. Gradually.

Hallo again, the_seeker. Thank you for making the second attempt; and I have nothing against whatever you want to believe in a religious way. However, when you make assertions, it is understandable that your readers would ask questions - especially where those assertions seem skewed, or just dribble here and there. The same would be true if I were to quote the Bible or any other religious document and claim that such a writ was way ahead of science and people are only just confirming them. At the end of the day, it just goes to show that whoever is making such statements actually does not understand what is meant by the term 'science'.

the_seeker:

The topic of this thread is How The Universe Will End. The most popular scientific theory states that the universe will stop expanding at some point and start contracting until all matter is compressed together; THE BIG CRUNCH.

That is only one theory, and it is fast giving way to an alternative theory where the Universe will not end in a big crunch by rather enter into another dimension different from the present and usher us all into an eternity never before imagined.

The quran  corroborate this precisely, from  the creation of the universe from a big bang to its expansion and finally it contraction to a 'crunch'.

I'm not so sure that is what the Quran suggests. Who even knows that the quran (any quran) teaches such a thing? Afterall, anytime people try to point out certain things to Muslims, they are never consistent and just swicth until they say that the Quran cannot be translated into another language since nobody knows exactly what the Quran is teaching. If you cannot translate a document into another language and get the same meaning, what then is the substance in what you present by quoting any translation of the quran?

Let's see what I mean by examining what you quoted:

THE BIG BANG
QURAN 21;30- Do not these disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were an integrated mass (Primeveal atom), which We then split, and from water We made all living things? Will they not believe even then?

The problem with that quote is that you're insinuating what it does not say. The quote suggests that 'the heavens and the earth were an integrated mass,' which you put in parenthesis as a 'primeval atom'; but you went on initially to interpret this as that "that the universe was separated from a whole". Now let me show you something crucial here:

      (a)   'the heavens and the earth' - says allah, 'were joined as one piece'
              . .  and it was the heavens and the earth that were parted apart.

      (b)   'the universe' was what you wrongly inferred was separated from a whole
              . .  and that is where your problem is, because you confused the message
              in that verse, which would confuse your readers as well.

Now, let me also quote the various English translations of that same verse to show what I'm pointing out:

[list]

Quran 0[b]21[/b].0[b]30[/b]

Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? [Yusuf Ali]

Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe? [Pickthall]

Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the earth were closed up, but We have opened them; and We have made of water everything living, will they not then believe?  [Shakir]

ARE, THEN, they who are bent on denying the truth not aware that the heavens and the earth were [once] one single entity, which We then parted asunder? - and [that] We made out of water every living thing? Will they not then begin to believe? [M. Asad]

Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not believe? [Hilali/Khan]

[/list]

Clearly, the quran says that it was the heavens and the earth that were parted asunder - not the Universe as you assumed was separated from a 'whole'.

THE BIG CRUNCH
QURAN 21;104- On that day We will fold the heaven, like the folding of a book. Just as We initiated the first creation, We will revert it. This is Our promise. We will certainly fulfill it.

Sorry, mate. The translations on that verse do not suggest that allah was going to revert anything in creation. Perhaps it is muslim apologists in recent years who are trying to gull the public by making it sound like the quran is suggesting allah is going to revert creation - No, he is not !Here are the few verses in other translations:

[list]

Quran 0[b]21[/b].104

The Day that We roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books (completed),- even as We produced the first creation, so shall We produce a new one: a promise We have undertaken: truly shall We fulfil it.   [Yusf Ali]

The Day when We shall roll up the heavens as a recorder rolleth up a written scroll. As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it. (It is) a promise (binding) upon Us. Lo! We are to perform it.  [Pickthall]

On the day when We will roll up heaven like the rolling up of the scroll for writings, as We originated the first creation, (so) We shall reproduce it; a promise (binding on Us); surely We will bring it about. [Shakir]

And (remember) the Day when We shall roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books, as We began the first creation, We shall repeat it, (it is) a promise binding upon Us. Truly, We shall do it.  [Hilali/Khan]

This is the Day when We fold the heavens the way the scribe rolls together the scrolls that are ready for the publishing of books, so that as We effected the first creation so will We effect recreation, a promise that We are Omnipotent enough to fulfill and bring to an end.  [Al-Muntakhab]

[/list]

You can see yourself, the case is not one of "big crunch" by "reverting" - nope. There is no need to make it sound like what it is not.

Viaro these verses are clear and unequivocal.

No, they are not - scroll up and see how you muddled them.

You posts show you are automatically assuming that the Quran (or any religious book for that matter) cannot be right on scientific matters.

I don't do so 'automatically'; rather, viaro examines each case on its own merit and likes to caution religiously minded folks to separate their fundamentalism from the beautiful enterprise of what is properly called 'science'. If any religious person thinks that his religion is 'scientific', they are free to come forward and show that same thing - no cutting corners or beautiful lies will do the job.

It took scientists only recently to confirm postulate what was already recorded in the Quran over 1,400 years ago.

We've been through thise before with Abuzola making a similar statement until I pointed out how that was an obvious lie. Should I do the same with yours here? Please be careful when you make statements like this around viaro - you may not like what you read later on.

I honestly do not get your point with the 'something' or how you inferred that there are two entities

It was not the "Universe" that was separated from a 'whole' as you interpreted it. Rather, it was the heavens and the earth that the quran says were parted from each other. If the Universe was separated from a 'whole', then you would have the universe and 'something' - which you did not name. But if it was the heavens that were parted from the earth, then you have both the heavens and the earth distinguished.

Did you ever see, what is happening when you drop some rock in water?
Well, I believe that drop, the big bang, started from gravity shockwave.
And it spreaded like waves.
And, as long there are waves, it will spread and exist.
But, what is different is that galaxies at the end of the universe are speeding up, and they are starting to move faster than light, at least that is what I read. I believe that is the moment where matter collapse, and create new Universe in the center,  Also I believe that in the center of the universe (if there is such thing, and I believe there is), in future that vibration will also stop, when all galaxies are moved further in all directions. That part would be empty, no matter, and no time. So universe will be much like ring . And that same emptiness  will create another singularity spot, where new universe will come to existence. New wave, caused by the stretching of the old one. We are somewhere where number 2 is in the image. Mostly everything could be explained with wave effect. With multiverses too, every Universe is different wave. Also , wave is completely natural, and in empty space, with nothing in it, it could be perfect perpetuum mobile. So, this basic explanation satisfies both big bang and multiverses, which we are not aware, explains anti-matter, and lot of things that happens in a wave of matter. Why galaxies are spirals, why they are separating faster and faster, if you understand the wave. But it spreads different without friction force, instead of slowing down, it moves faster, because nothing is causing slowing of the matter at far end of Universe, and anti gravity is always in progress (space between galaxies is growing)



One axis that goes up is gravity, lowest point of wave,center, is gravitational singularity.



What I miss here is how will matter, from the edge of the universe, when it collapse, just magically show up in a singularity in the center, maybe quantum physics can solve that with uncertainty theory.

WHO WHAT WHERE WHEN WHY HOW

Until we discover what caused existence of that singularity, it will be always named God, or unexplainable. Pre-cause of all causes.
Because, I don't think human brain is capable to understand that pre-cause.
Because we don't know what infinity is, and how it starts, because it is a paradox by itself, infinity does not start, but we did started, so we are collapse of finity (beginning)  with  infinity (end). End for one thing is the beginning of another.
Hm, maybe we (our universe) is finite manifestation in infinite loop. A dot that moves from position A to position B, and end it's life, and new universe begin with dying of the old one, and that creates infinite loop. Isn't this how everything works? One star dies, and new stars are born from death of the other. One plant dies, and make fertile for another plant. One person dies, provides space for another, Finite loops that could manifest infinite numbers of times.
Hm, ok, I suppose I came to  this whole idea right now,

Anyone knows some scientist? I just made super-crazy hypothesis that needs proofs to support it, 

Thanks for resuscitating this interesting discussion. I wonder where Viaro has disappeared to.

Pls anyone help. How can i reach viaro?

@ Deep Sight welcome
Any comments on my writings?