"I actually think scientists still do believe this. My science teacher explained this theory to us in 9th grade, I think.Maybe some do, but consensus says big crunch is a no. There's always at least one scientists who believes something is true even when the evidence is staring them in the face.
It's a really stupid theory, at least I believe. But then again, I'm not some MIT scientist so I do not know all the facts."
One event you wish you could have witnessed in the past or future
"BiggerBomb said:No, I understand that space is constantly expanding outwards. I know this. I also understand that this energy is most probably finite."AfflictedTripp said:It's good that you don't "believe" in the theory, because you're not supposed to believe in theories, you're supposed to understand them ;)"adam_grif said:"TwoOneFive said:"the big bangNo such thing. Time had a beginning but it does not have an end. The universe is destined to expand outwards at an ever accelerating rate, eventually all energy in the universe will be dispersed to such a degree that no life anywhere is possible. Eventually, at some point after that, all usable energy will have become waste energy, with no chance of recovering any of it. This is called "Maximum Entropy", and it is completely inevitable.the end of the universe"
Luckily it's a very, very, very, very, very long way away."
Not to get us more off topic but, it's suspected that the universe will collapse in on itself at some point after expanding too much. The Universe likely will end as there was recently an article saying scientists believe they'd found evidence of a universe before ours. If
I can dig up the article I'll post it but your idea certainly sounds possible so who knows :)
Edit: http://www.physorg.com/news126955971.html not the article I read but it covers the same subject"
Why do people assume that simply because the universe is expanding it is somehow going to have a rubberband reflex and snap backwards? Has no one considered that it will eventually stop expanding and stand still? If you throw a baseball it will eventually stop moving, but it won't come right back at you. If you a throw a pebble into a pond the ripples will not reverse themselves.
I'm not sure I believe in this theory, in fact I simply do not."
Ok, the gravity of every object stretches across the whole universe, and acts on every other thing inside of it. Gravity affects spacetime (space and time are different aspects of the same thing), so it's logical to think that since the energy created at the big bang was finite, eventually it would slow the expansion of spacetime (space is constantly expanding outwards. I don't mean stuff is expanding outwards, although it is, but SPACE ITSELF is expanding), and then stop it, and then continue to pull it back until everything was a singularity once again, upon which time it would explode outwards and create another universe.
However, the galaxies that are moving away from our own are actually moving away at an accelerating rate. Despite the limited energy, which indicates that expansion of spacetime should have *always* been slowing, it's actually not, it's expanding at an increasing rate."
What I don't understand, is why people think that simply because the energy is expanding and is finite that this somehow means it will become a singularity. There is no correlation between these two theories.
Explosions do not implode, they explode. Those are two equally opposite reactions and do not relate to eachother. There is also no gravity in space, space is a vacuum so it would be reasonable to assume that the expansion will eventually stand still. Yes, gravity is linked between two objects; however, the further two or more objects become the less of an effect gravity has on the objects. Thus it is illogical to assume that with a greater increase in distance, gravity will become powerful enough to reverse the effect of an entire universe's explosive creation. Solar systems and galaxies are self sustaining for a very long period of time, though eventually their sun(s) will die out and they will die off. On the other hand, stars are constantly being created and through this process more galaxies may appear.
Now, were someone to propose that if the galaxy becomes too desparate and the distance between all forces becomes to great, these forces will not be able to provide the energy to create new systems and galaxies. Perhaps this is a logical course for an eventual "end." Yet I am unable to see why the theory suggested has such a strong following. From my perspective, it makes absolutely no sense.
"Perhaps one of the physicists in here can help a brutha out. I was arguing with a dumbass who couldn't spell "google" the other day and he insisted that energy is eternal. I'm no physicist at all, but I argued that it is not. He also argued that energy = matter.
So what is it?"
Are you trying to call me a dumbass? Energy doesn't equal matter, matter creates energy. Energy is unlimited, matter is finite. Yet matter cannot be destroyed, it is in a constant cycle that keeps it in existance. Matter can also not be created, it is simply used and then recycled. Energy is constantly being created through the changes matter undergoes through physical and chemical reactions. However, energy once used may "dried up" if the matter which created it is no longer in conjunction with its energy.
"adam_grif said:1. Actually, gravity DOES exist in space, and gravity not only affects space, but time also. Gravity warps space and time. Think of space as a big sheet of plastic suspended between two points. The more massive the object, the more it "bends" the plastic around it. The plastic slopes downwards, pulling things towards it. This is a useful touch stone."BiggerBomb said:No, I understand that space is constantly expanding outwards. I know this. I also understand that this energy is most probably finite."AfflictedTripp said:It's good that you don't "believe" in the theory, because you're not supposed to believe in theories, you're supposed to understand them ;)"adam_grif said:"TwoOneFive said:"the big bangNo such thing. Time had a beginning but it does not have an end. The universe is destined to expand outwards at an ever accelerating rate, eventually all energy in the universe will be dispersed to such a degree that no life anywhere is possible. Eventually, at some point after that, all usable energy will have become waste energy, with no chance of recovering any of it. This is called "Maximum Entropy", and it is completely inevitable.the end of the universe"
Luckily it's a very, very, very, very, very long way away."
Not to get us more off topic but, it's suspected that the universe will collapse in on itself at some point after expanding too much. The Universe likely will end as there was recently an article saying scientists believe they'd found evidence of a universe before ours. If
I can dig up the article I'll post it but your idea certainly sounds possible so who knows :)
Edit: http://www.physorg.com/news126955971.html not the article I read but it covers the same subject"
Why do people assume that simply because the universe is expanding it is somehow going to have a rubberband reflex and snap backwards? Has no one considered that it will eventually stop expanding and stand still? If you throw a baseball it will eventually stop moving, but it won't come right back at you. If you a throw a pebble into a pond the ripples will not reverse themselves.
I'm not sure I believe in this theory, in fact I simply do not."
Ok, the gravity of every object stretches across the whole universe, and acts on every other thing inside of it. Gravity affects spacetime (space and time are different aspects of the same thing), so it's logical to think that since the energy created at the big bang was finite, eventually it would slow the expansion of spacetime (space is constantly expanding outwards. I don't mean stuff is expanding outwards, although it is, but SPACE ITSELF is expanding), and then stop it, and then continue to pull it back until everything was a singularity once again, upon which time it would explode outwards and create another universe.
However, the galaxies that are moving away from our own are actually moving away at an accelerating rate. Despite the limited energy, which indicates that expansion of spacetime should have *always* been slowing, it's actually not, it's expanding at an increasing rate."
What I don't understand, is why people think that simply because the energy is expanding and is finite that this somehow means it will become a singularity. There is no correlation between these two theories.
Explosions do not implode, they explode. Those are two equally opposite reactions and do not relate to eachother. There is also no gravity in space, space is a vacuum so it would be reasonable to assume that the expansion will eventually stand still. Yes, gravity is linked between two objects; however, the further two or more objects become the less of an effect gravity has on the objects. Thus it is illogical to assume that with a greater increase in distance, gravity will become powerful enough to reverse the effect of an entire universe's explosive creation. Solar systems and galaxies are self sustaining for a very long period of time, though eventually their sun(s) will die out and they will die off. On the other hand, stars are constantly being created and through this process more galaxies may appear.
Now, were someone to propose that if the galaxy becomes too desparate and the distance between all forces becomes to great, these forces will not be able to provide the energy to create new systems and galaxies. Perhaps this is a logical course for an eventual "end." Yet I am unable to see why the theory suggested has such a strong following. From my perspective, it makes absolutely no sense."
2. It's not a difficult think to conceptualize actually. Space is expanding outwards with the finite energy from the big bang. It was once thought that as soon as the expansion started happening, gravity was slowly slowing the whole thing down, and eventually space would stop expanding, but since gravity is still acting on it, it would be pulled back and become a singularity. But now we know that it's not slowing down at all. it's speeding up.
Imagine a wall, and pressed up against this wall is an object, and on the side pressed up against the wall is an explosive charge. On the opposite side is a rocket motor that is providing thrust, keeping the object pressed up against the wall. The "big bang" was the explosive charge going off, the whole thing flies out quickly, but then the rocket motor (gravity) is providing slow, but constant thrust in the opposite direction. Even though the explosive charge was very powerful and sent it flying pretty far, from the moment it left the wall it's advance outward was being slowed. Eventually the energy from the explosive charge is matched by the energy from the rocket motor, and for one instant it stops moving, then since hte rocket motor continues firing, it starts slowly flying backtowards the wall.
3. It's DOESN'T have a strong following. The theory has been pretty well abandoned by the community because of the observation that it is accelerating, not slowing.
"Perhaps one of the physicists in here can help a brutha out. I was arguing with a dumbass who couldn't spell "google" the other day and he insisted that energy is eternal. I'm no physicist at all, but I argued that it is not. He also argued that energy = matter.BiggerBomb said:
So what is it?"
"Silverain said:"Perhaps one of the physicists in here can help a brutha out. I was arguing with a dumbass who couldn't spell "google" the other day and he insisted that energy is eternal. I'm no physicist at all, but I argued that it is not. He also argued that energy = matter.
So what is it?"
Are you trying to call me a dumbass? Energy doesn't equal matter, matter creates energy. Energy is unlimited, matter is finite. Yet matter cannot be destroyed, it is in a constant cycle that keeps it in existance. Matter can also not be created, it is simply used and then recycled. Energy is constantly being created through the changes matter undergoes through physical and chemical reactions. However, energy once used may "dried up" if the matter which created it is no longer in conjunction with its energy."
LOL.
Ok, let's set some shit straight:
Matter and Energy are different forms of the same thing. E=MC^2. Remember that equation? E=MC^2 ("e equals m-c squared") stands for Energy = Mass x The Speed of Light squared. Energy and Matter are interchangeable. Energy is "eternal" in that it never disappears or is destroyed. Matter and Energy can convert from one into the other in various ways, but every time you actually "use" energy, the energy isn't actually "used up", it just gets turned into something else, and usually radiates away from you, meaning you can't use it over and over again.
Energy and matter are never created or destroyed, they simply change form. Energy is NOT being created all of the time, energy and matter was only ever created at one point, and that was the Big Bang. Everything else is just the same shit being recycled. The energy in a closed system is constant, never rises or falls. The universe is one big closed system. When we use energy, it radiates outwards and becomes lost to us, we can never use the same energy twice. Energy moves at the speed of light, and we can't go faster than that, so once it radiates away, we can never "Catch up" to use it again. Eventually all of the usable energy in the universe will be in this fashion, and this is maximum entropy.
"Silverain said:Did I reference you, at all, anywhere, at any point, in any way, in my post? Did I so much as hint that BiggerBomb is a dumbass in my post? Did I mention BiggerBomb? Did I say my argument was on GiantBomb?"Perhaps one of the physicists in here can help a brutha out. I was arguing with a dumbass who couldn't spell "google" the other day and he insisted that energy is eternal. I'm no physicist at all, but I argued that it is not. He also argued that energy = matter.
So what is it?"
Are you trying to call me a dumbass?
Or are you just so incredibly paranoid/self-centered that you thought I MUST be talking about you?
"Any Guns N' Roses concert. Slash might be a sellout, but he is in my opinion the greatest guitarist of all time."
*Agrees with Biggerbomb*
"BiggerBomb said:"Silverain said:Did I reference you, at all, anywhere, at any point, in any way, in my post? Did I so much as hint that BiggerBomb is a dumbass in my post? Did I mention BiggerBomb? Did I say my argument was on GiantBomb?"Perhaps one of the physicists in here can help a brutha out. I was arguing with a dumbass who couldn't spell "google" the other day and he insisted that energy is eternal. I'm no physicist at all, but I argued that it is not. He also argued that energy = matter.
So what is it?"
Are you trying to call me a dumbass?
Or are you just so incredibly paranoid/self-centered that you thought I MUST be talking about you?"
/sigh
I am not self centered, but I do have very low self esteem which at times leads to paranoia. On the other hand, you throw around insults so lightly that the probability of you insulting me or someone within this thread was great enough that I took it upon myself to assume. Perhaps I shouldn't jump to conclusions so quickly. Perhaps you shouldn't insult everyone who disagrees with you or is ignorant of a fact that you believe all should know.
There is no need to be so belligerent.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment