The universe will completely die in..

jimjamuk · 8 Jul 2015 at 13:58

anything I don't mind said:
Not necessarily. Even if it is proven that our galaxy is expanding, that does not prove that it came from a singularity. It simply means that it is expanding. It could have started out with a single sun and over time grew and grew and expanded further. All these ideas are basically based on premises that have never actually been proven. They take these (incorrect) premises as given and then extrapolate.

OK that's fine - my kids thought the moon was made of cheese which is another theory. I'll go with the mainstream for now until something comes along to challenge that.

Also did you know that the light from these galaxies have taken us billions of years to reach us - therefore we are looking back into the past when we see these? Some of the stars we see are already gone its taken that long

anything I don't mind · 8 Jul 2015 at 14:02

jimjamuk said:
OK that's fine - my kids thought the moon was made of cheese which is another theory. I'll go with the mainstream for now until something comes along to challenge that.

Also did you know that the light from these galaxies have taken us billions of years to reach us - therefore we are looking back into the past when we see these? Some of the stars we see are already gone its taken that long

Cheese? yea lol have fun with that theory.

Reeve · 8 Jul 2015 at 14:12

jimjamuk said:
I dont think this is the case with redshifts creating speeds faster than the speed of light. Maybe you are mixing the speed of light and the change in frequency (red/blue shift) due to an object moving away from us - the speed of the light reaching us remains constant whilst the change in frequency can indicate its relative motion to us viewing that light

I think you misunderstood me, I never suggested the speed of light changed but maybe I wasn't clear enough. I'm saying if we ignored the effect of universe expansion then these distant galaxies would have to be going at 'impossible' speeds(>c) if we consider their observed redshift.

If you wasn't responding to me in the first place, then completely ignore me

jimjamuk · 8 Jul 2015 at 15:19

Reeve said:
I think you misunderstood me, I never suggested the speed of light changed but maybe I wasn't clear enough. I'm saying if we ignored the effect of universe expansion then these distant galaxies would have to be going at 'impossible' speeds(>c) if we consider their observed redshift.

If you wasn't responding to me in the first place, then completely ignore me

ah I follow you - its not that the galaxies themselves are travelling faster than the speed of light but the space between us and them is expanding giving us the impression they travel faster than light. Its an odd notion that the Universe itself is expanding including the "space" between everything.

colzboppo · 8 Jul 2015 at 15:42

Reeve said:
I think you misunderstood me, I never suggested the speed of light changed but maybe I wasn't clear enough. I'm saying if we ignored the effect of universe expansion then these distant galaxies would have to be going at 'impossible' speeds(>c) if we consider their observed redshift.

If you wasn't responding to me in the first place, then completely ignore me

It's the assumption that the redshift is caused by doppler effect that some people call into question, not the inferred velocities we get from assuming the emitted light is not in anyway affected by some other intrinsic property of said galaxy or the space that lies between the galaxy and you beside expansion & acceleration. Our understanding of intergalatic cosmology is still in it's infancy, the mechanical/mavity dominated theory we accept is based upon the presence of dark matter and dark energy, both of which are currently unobservable & unprovable.

There are however people who are or have actively researched alternatives (with great difficulty, little funding and resistance from the sci community), and others who are involved in the mainstream who are hopefully trying just as hard to disprove their own theories through further research.

I'm not going to say I'm right and those people are wrong, I'm just saying it's less settled science and still open for debate IMHO.

Reeve · 8 Jul 2015 at 17:34

colzboppo said:
It's the assumption that the redshift is caused by doppler effect that some people call into question, not the inferred velocities we get from assuming the emitted light is not in anyway affected by some other intrinsic property of said galaxy or the space that lies between the galaxy and you beside expansion & acceleration. Our understanding of intergalatic cosmology is still in it's infancy, the mechanical/mavity dominated theory we accept is based upon the presence of dark matter and dark energy, both of which are currently unobservable & unprovable.

There are however people who are or have actively researched alternatives (with great difficulty, little funding and resistance from the sci community), and others who are involved in the mainstream who are hopefully trying just as hard to disprove their own theories through further research.

I'm not going to say I'm right and those people are wrong, I'm just saying it's less settled science and still open for debate IMHO.

Well I have a memory like a sieve but from what I remember these redshifts are calibrated using standard candles such as Type 1a supernovae. Due to the conditions under which these occur, the luminosity is constant and thus they can be used to determine distances through measuring the received flux.

gothic_hobbit · 8 Jul 2015 at 17:46

GSXR Gaz Mc said:
wonder if half life 3 will be out by then ??

Well we got Duke Nukem Forever eventually (even though it sucked).

So, it is possible

TechMinerUK · 8 Jul 2015 at 17:57

Wasn't this discussion about how the universe will end, not how it started?

do_ron_ron · 8 Jul 2015 at 17:59

Merlin5 said:
...a trillion years, give or take. Not a glimmer of light. Everything in the universe will be extinguished. No supernovas, stars, neutrons, planets, no explosions, nothing at all. So says the narrator at the end of a BBC 4 documentary I just watched.

The big bang was only around 13.8 billion years ago, so a trillion years (a thousand billion) is still a fair way off. I'm only posting this to say, it seems unbelievable to think that eventually no life will ever exist. If that is the case, it does make me wonder, just how important is life if it can be snubbed out seemingly forever, even a trillion years from now?

Or, does anyone think another big bang would probably be triggered again?

Until a few years down the line some new theory gets accepted as it has in the past.

Why are some scientists afraid to say "We don't know".

DampDog · 8 Jul 2015 at 18:00

TechMinerUK said:
Wasn't this discussion about how the universe will end, not how it started?

Could the end and the beginning not be one and the same??

Edrof · 8 Jul 2015 at 18:28

I'm saving bottle caps and training cockroaches to forage for truffles. I think I'll be fine.

arc@css · 8 Jul 2015 at 19:34

GSXR Gaz Mc said:
wonder if half life 3 will be out by then ??

koolpc · 8 Jul 2015 at 19:40

The way of life as we know it will probably be 'extinct' much sooner than some think!

StriderX · 8 Jul 2015 at 19:43

I put all the grains of salt into ideas about what will supposedly happen billions of years from now, variables are >approaching infinity...so this is no less a theory than the standard model, which has vastly less variables, but still vastly difficult to confirm, i think its something like 26 unknowns.

doofer · 8 Jul 2015 at 19:48

Nothing existed before I gained conciousness, nothing will exist after I lose conciousness. It's all an illusion.

Tephnos · 8 Jul 2015 at 19:58

mrk said:
The conditions were right and we came to be.

Just like how the conditions must be right for bacteria to form on a household surface. If the surface is frozen then the same bacteria won't form, if meat is heated to the correct temp then bacteria is killed off etc.

The universe is a game of chance. Remember that we live on a planet that has had multiple extinction level events through its lifetime, the next one will be during the time humans are living on it.

You mean the one already happening that we're a big cause of?

Tephnos · 8 Jul 2015 at 19:58

anything I don't mind said:
There is no proof that the big bang theory is correct. There is just conjecture. The expanding universe theory is also not proven. Galaxies could simply be moving through the universe, which i think they are.

These ideas of the big bang, pangea theory and expanding universe are all consistent with religious superstition and this is why they have been accepted by the mainstream.

It has been proven that the earth and other planets are increasing in size or growing. This explains how we see different size planets and stars. The idea the everything in the universe appeared out of nothing in its current form is childish at best.

u wot

Participant · 8 Jul 2015 at 20:05

BuffetSlayer said:
Bend over then!

Arf

I'm so convinced that the Lord doesn't exist, that I promise the world right now that if the Lord turns out to be a real thing, I will bend over and let him roger me until the third coming.

So to speak.

DampDog · 8 Jul 2015 at 20:09

koolpc said:
The way of life as we know it will probably be 'extinct' much sooner than some think!

I think exactly the opposite. Once we start to find it there will be an avalanche of life. It won't be a case of trying to find life, it will be case of where can we look and not find it. It may not be intelligent or as we now understand it, but I'm sure it will be prevalent throughout the known universe, possibly the unknown universe.

http://www.ukprogressive.co.uk/phil...ien-life-say-top-scientists/article40856.html

koolpc · 8 Jul 2015 at 20:29

Participant said:
I'm so convinced that the Lord doesn't exist, that I promise the world right now that if the Lord turns out to be a real thing, I will bend over and let him roger me until the third coming.

So to speak.

Such a terrible thing to say. I hope God will forgive you!