a quote from Lawrence M. Krauss

Dark_Angel said:
Really is a question I do really want answered. I don't suppose anyone now could answer it with 100 percent certainty though. :(
Click to expand...

As far as we know, the answer is no. Imagine that the boundary is a wall that you could smash yourself against if you were able to reach it. The fact is, you could never reach such a point in the universe where you could say that you're near the end or you'll hit something. There are a LOT of theories and models that have been thought about over the centuries, and the newer ones (membrane, string theories, etc.) could possibly shed some new light on the question over the next few years. Perhaps the universe is finite? But, it is also not impossible that it is at the same time, unbounded. Think pac-man, or a globe, lke the Earth. You could go in a 'straight line' and never come to the end of the Earth. The surface of the earth is finite, yet unbounded. Some think that the universe follows this, that it is finite and unbounded, but in a three dimensional way, not like the curved two dimensional way that the Earth's surface is.

It's probably true that the universe and space itself are expanding, there isn't much to doubt there. But the shapes involved? Mind blowing.
 
Not sure if anyone's mentioned, but there's a theory called "The Big Crunch". Basically when the universe reaches a certain point, it will start contracting and collapsing back on it's self. I like the idea that the universe is a cycle, where its expanded and contracted many times before.
 
A slightly more pressing matter which will happen a few billion years earlier is the fact that the moon will drift too far away to have any effect on the Earth. No tides no seasons no stability.
 
PapaLazaru said:
A slightly more pressing matter which will happen a few billion years earlier is the fact that the moon will drift too far away to have any effect on the Earth. No tides no seasons no stability.
Click to expand...

Before that happens the sun will destroy us.

And I heard somewhere that it will never fully drift away and might get pulled back in.
 
I think everyone is forgetting how much a billion is.

To think humans have only been on this planet for a maximum of 200,000 years, its stupid to even think where we would be in 5 billion years as we will not even exist in the same form.

Robots will rule ! (I say this in jest, but its a possibility)
 
willhub said:
Before that happens the sun will destroy us.

And I heard somewhere that it will never fully drift away and might get pulled back in.
Click to expand...

Is it feasible we'll figure out a way to keep it orbiting correctly? I know its a bit science fiction now, but 1000s of years, couldnt we figure out how to apply stability to the moon and keep in on a specific orbit? Propulsion seems a tad star trek, but why not :p
 
wannabedamned said:
Is it feasible we'll figure out a way to keep it orbiting correctly? I know its a bit science fiction now, but 1000s of years, couldnt we figure out how to apply stability to the moon and keep in on a specific orbit? Propulsion seems a tad star trek, but why not :p
Click to expand...

Look at our tech 500 years ago... We're progressing faster now than we ever have I'd say.

In other words the speed of our technological advances is increasing faster now than say 100 years ago.
 
Dark_Angel said:
Look at our tech 500 years ago... We're progressing faster now than we ever have I'd say.

In other words the speed of our technological advances is increasing faster now than say 100 years ago.
Click to expand...

Evidently, that's because of our greater understanding of mathematics and physics. We can sit down with paper and deduce if something will 'work', whereas before it was trial and error.

It still kind of is, but on a much shorter timescale.
 
it only takes one unlucky meteor / super volcano / supernovae / CME and poof, we're all gone, chances of that happening in the next 100,000 years, are probably pretty good, so it really is a question of survival through ingenuity, discoveries, and brute force nukes that are going to save / destroy us all.

Also - I don't believe the Universe is one individual, expanding result of some big bang, I think we are just a small pocket of existence in a vast web of expansion and contraction of mass/energy, creation and destruction chaotically and slowly bringing this and other 'universes' in and out of existence, after all, the expansion of the universe isn't uniform, the clues lie in the microwave background radiation.
 
colzboppo said:
it only takes one unlucky meteor / super volcano / supernovae / CME and poof, we're all gone, chances of that happening in the next 100,000 years, are probably pretty good, so it really is a question of survival through ingenuity, discoveries, and brute force nukes that are going to save / destroy us all.
Click to expand...

Erm, what?
 
Ok 100,000 years was just a figure I pulled out of the air to prove a point, I'm sure if you added up all the major natural disasters and the chance of at least one of them happening in the next x years, it would be pretty close though.
 
rotters said:
Scientists can only comment using current theories. Ie we now know the world isn't flat. We will know more in the future and our current theories may be wrong.
Click to expand...

Although sometimes regarded theories become falsified it is very, very rare. Off the top ofmy head i cannot think of a single example. The word theory in science is not the same as in common speech. A theory is not just an idea some crazy beared man in a lab coat thinks up. A scientific theory is the closest thing there is to a scientific fact, it is verifiable on multiple levels, with extensive analytical and empirical proofs. A theory arises when other ideas are slowly rejected and a prominent one resists all attempts at disproving and no known verifiable counter evidence exists.


The concept of the flat earth is actually largely an urban myth and has never been a popular idea in hundreds of years. Scientists knew the world was spherical for a long long time. Those long ago who did think the world was flat were not scientists and were not applying scientific methodology nor developed a scientific theory.
 
D.P. said:
Although sometimes regarded theories become falsified it is very, very rare. Off the top ofmy head i cannot think of a single example.
Click to expand...

Newtons Law of universal gravitation. Superceded by General Relativity. Though unusual in that we still use it despite knowing it is wrong because it gives us a decent enough approximation for most things. Other examples would include the Blank Slate theory (though you would first have to accept Psychology as a science!), numerous theories around the age of the earth, theories regarding earthquakes before the (relatively recent) theory of plate techtonics was discovered. If you look at the history of almost any scientific field you will find theories being discarded all over the place as another comes along that better fits the evidence.
 
janp said:
Not sure if anyone's mentioned, but there's a theory called "The Big Crunch". Basically when the universe reaches a certain point, it will start contracting and collapsing back on it's self. I like the idea that the universe is a cycle, where its expanded and contracted many times before.
Click to expand...

I think they have pretty much discounted this theory now, as when they finally measured the movement of galaxies they have found that they are accelerating still, which no-one expected. They had thought the gravitational mass of the universe would be acting as the cosmic handbrake to the initial expansion, then mavity could overcome it and cause the contraction.

But that's why they came up with the idea of dark energy & matter as there are some fundamental forces still driving on the expansion faster and faster.
 
RDM said:
Newtons Law of universal gravitation. Superceded by General Relativity. Though unusual in that we still use it despite knowing it is wrong because it gives us a decent enough approximation for most things. Other examples would include the Blank Slate theory (though you would first have to accept Psychology as a science!), numerous theories around the age of the earth, theories regarding earthquakes before the (relatively recent) theory of plate techtonics was discovered. If you look at the history of almost any scientific field you will find theories being discarded all over the place as another comes along that better fits the evidence.
Click to expand...

Newton's laws were never a scientific theory but a set of equations that helped describe some physical processes. There was no serious theoretical model or explanation forwarded for their existence that could be considered a scientific theory. Also, his laws only applied to sub-relativistic speeds, which still applies to day hence they are still used.
Blank Slate theory was never a scientific theory but an idea, much like the age of earth ideas, and early ideas of earthquakes which is where people get confused.

Scientists can have ideas, they may describe this as a theory under the common speech meaning, but this does not make it a scientific theory. A scientific theory only arises after may previous ideas are falsified and when the body of evidence is so great, verifiable, and verifiable by different modes. In some areas such physics scientists more correctly refer to these ideas as a model. Models can readily be dis-proven, with the model that survives the onslaught of cross-examination slowly becoming established as a scientific theory.

Most of the so called falsified scientific theories were not verified scientific theories at all but scientific or more commonly philosophical ideas.


The thing is there is no definitive point when an idea becomes an established theory and most of the early examples of falsified theories were not conducted under modern scientific practice but were philosophical theories with limited verifiable evidence or analytical proofs.
 
Last edited:
RDM said:
Newtons Law of universal gravitation. Superceded by General Relativity. Though unusual in that we still use it despite knowing it is wrong because it gives us a decent enough approximation for most things. Other examples would include the Blank Slate theory (though you would first have to accept Psychology as a science!), numerous theories around the age of the earth, theories regarding earthquakes before the (relatively recent) theory of plate techtonics was discovered. If you look at the history of almost any scientific field you will find theories being discarded all over the place as another comes along that better fits the evidence.
Click to expand...

As D.P. has said really, and they were never really disproved, just more accurate ones were found.

For them to be truly disprov
en they would have to start turning out completely incorrect answers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom