A bang or a whimper?

Here is a graphic which provides a more visual account of this process:

Perhaps in order to understand the beginning of our little universe, we must look towards the end of it?

Consider that eventually we will be able to fabricate an entire universe in such a manner as to be wholly independent of this one. The new universe would have a 4-d structure, and would therefore be set adrift in 5-d space.

Now, like most technology it would be largely predictable but not entirely. So we would set up a 'seed' which would then expand into the new universe.

So to say this seed is absolutely a singularity, would be wrong. It is just very small compared to our present expanded universe. Perhaps the seed would be the size of a large galaxy. But it would be rather more dense.

Now look backwards at our universe. It is not a particularly large stretch of the imagination to see how the seed of our universe was constructed by conscious beings from a previous universe. That universe may well still exist, expanding in spacial terms, but largely in a state of entropy and perhaps a few ridiculously large black holes sucking mass out, and channeling that mass into new universes.

Earthly technology has reached the point where it is very close to colonizing other worlds, and when it reaches this point, it will continue to grow and expand virtually infinitely. Although I suspect it already has, and our local planet is but one of many others inhabited by the descendants of other worlds, and other universes.

As for the big bang:
Well I have computed that the structure of the universe is far to regular to have formed by a random explosion, and that the seed (imperfect singularity) split apart due to spin. This spin can only be a force that overcomes gravity, so that the first step after the seed is two objects in a nice neat orbit. A big bang type explosion will not form binary stars and ecliptic planes, but highly elliptical orbital structures. Also, the most massive objects have the most axial spin. Thus that spin had to be imparted to them when they first formed. Random collisions will have the most massive objects with the least spin. If any spin at all.

I call this,
The Big Unwind:

http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/big-unwind.htm

It amuses me how a careless use of language can lead us into a totally distorted mental picture of reality. Fred Hoyle coined the term "big bang" as a piss-take aimed at those who concluded from GR that the universe had a beginning in time. We now know that Einstein's field equations progressively lose their predictive authority as gravity increases and therefore the singularity hypothesis has gone the way of phlogiston and the luminiferous aether. Only a few of the troglodytes still adhere to this metaphysically nonsensical notion of a universe with a beginning but what does this tell us about the big bang? There can be little doubt that such an event occurred and that the entire information content of the current universe emerged from a zero-volume point into which it had previously collapsed. However in the absence of a singularity time cannot stand still. It can slow down to a crawl but it can't grind to a complete halt. This should be a great comfort to all philosophers because it means that we don't have to speculate about the nature of an external causal agent to kick the universe off again but it does make one wonder how long in our years it would have taken for all of the information content to leak out of a universe-sized black hole. It's a trivial question in the sense that in our years this doesn't really mean much since only proper time is real time but it's interesting food for thought nevertheless.

With our human technology the furthest back in time we can see is to a period 380,000 years after the big bang, a region known as the CMB. However Superman can see all the way back to the big bang itself. How many gazillions of our years would Superman have to stand there in order to watch our universe vanish back into its zero-volume point?