A Prediction you can bank on: It's the End of the Universe As We Know It…

page: 2
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Doom!....YAY! interesting read, S&F. Can you tell me the theory on if we were able to construct a "death star" type space station and placed it in area between galaxies and not in one. Is "empty space" safe from the rules of this equation?




posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by googolplex
what I was referring to was the complete destruction of matter, plus I don't think the Nothing could exert such force's to annihilate the Universe, this would be a contradiction of what the Nothing, not is.


Though I would say "complete destruction of matter" is a bit of a misnomer, the force exists, because the force IS the universe. The acceleration of expansion isn't calculated to be a constant, but an ever increasing amount, which will eventually get out of control. That's were "w" comes into play in that equation.

Einstein originally theorized it, as a "repellent gravity", which countered gravity and kept the universe from collapsing in on itself a long time ago, and observations from the Hubble have demonstrated that there is some force out there that is doing what Einstein thought -- pushing things apart, just as gravity pulls them together. The problem is that it doesn't balance gravity, it counters it, and as things get further and further apart, the gravitational pull is less and less, and the acceleration increases.


I was also speaking of Terrance Makenna's omega point, you would have to understand what Terence is talking about to understand where I am coming from.


McKenna, the Timewave Zero guy?

Talk to me on 23 December, 2012 and we can review whether his drug induced insights have any merit.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hr2burn
Doom!....YAY! interesting read, S&F. Can you tell me the theory on if we were able to construct a "death star" type space station and placed it in area between galaxies and not in one. Is "empty space" safe from the rules of this equation?


No, at the end, it wouldn't be a matter of not getting whacked by a planet or something as it whizzes by, because everything in existence is affected. There is no "empty space", in the sense that there is nothing there, and the expansion of the universe isn't simply things physically moving apart from each other, but space itself expanding.

So the only way to escape with your space station would be to build it outside of the universe, and I'm not sure how that could be accomplished.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Yes that was even talked about when I was growing up in Science Digest or Omni magizines, dad used to get the family alot as a science teacher, his brother a physicist. So surprisingly, all these things have speculated and published for decades about decades by scientist, that would be in the 70s and 80s.

I see holographic universe as energy that is redesigned into another school, but the universe has always existed in one form or another.

All energy has a teleos purpose and it upgrades.

We're in infinity, all things are infinite parts of infinity, and there are animate and inanimate energies.

To me the universe is akin to this. In the real world(s), we have advanced technologies. We are constantly learning and helping/assisting, and volunteering, and yet spend much time with family too. Learning is downloading, but the practicums take longer. So we enter into simulated realities where time is different, ie. there is No Time to begin with, but subjective. We could go for 50 years to learn something thoroughly, and come back a moment later.

Hint hint.
edit on 26-7-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Who cares. When is Friday?



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
they just keep geting it wroung.
All of space is Not one thing.
have you see how far they can see in to space?
they can see past the big bang that started it all.

and othere galaxys wear out thier before the big bang.
we are just a small bang...
thay still think we are at the centre of it all.
we are just a tiny bit on the side.
that is so bad for thier Ego's



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Wouldn't Sol have turned into a red giant; engulfing the Earth by then? I'm no astrophysics or astronomer, but I was just wondering.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by majesticgent
Wouldn't Sol have turned into a red giant; engulfing the Earth by then? I'm no astrophysics or astronomer, but I was just wondering.


Yeah, so "sun, moon, Earth" in that "what happens at the end" bit should be viewed as generic objects. Although, here's a thread on the possibility of moving the Earth before the sun engulfs it, which is interesting food for thought, as well.

It is quite feasible that, within 5 billion years, if we're still hanging around, we'd have the ability to move a planet by the means he cites. But then we still have the bigger event looming on the horizon.
edit on 26-7-2012 by adjensen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by majesticgent
 


Who says its going red? A whole lot of distorted ideas of our physics which are based on theories that are not credo's and in which many of the postulates have been proved error, yet these errors, (apparently backed by religion/rome/and oil corporations) seem to persistently stick around.

It's not going red. Its going to be an enormous WHITE/BLUE star.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Red, white, blue, either way Earth will be engulfed by it. Provided mankind doesn't kill itself off and figures out a way to move the planet, or move themselves into a new solar system.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 
Einstein made up the cosmic constant, because he could not balance his equation.

Mekenna never said any thing would happened on that date for certain, he only said it would happen for certain, at some point. For things to speed up that much, might take another 20 years or 200.

edit on 26-7-2012 by googolplex because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by majesticgent
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Red, white, blue, either way Earth will be engulfed by it. Provided mankind doesn't kill itself off and figures out a way to move the planet, or move themselves into a new solar system.


By that time we should have enough people , we could build a giant fart engine to maintain the proper distance from the sun, plus we would most likely have enough Fartanium 538 we could refuel the sun to full Golden Glow.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by googolplex
reply to post by adjensen
 
Einstein made up the cosmic constant, because he could not balance his equation.


I'd like to think "inferred a constant" is a little more respectful than "made up a constant"


Either way, he was right.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 
In one formulation of Einstein's equation, Lambda is expressed in units of matter density. This means we can ask how the cosmological constant, if it exists at all, compares with the density of the universe in the forms of stars and galaxies.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
Because the calculations are based on the laws that allow the universe to exist in the first place. Remove the laws, now you suddenly have made the existence impossible.


The laws that allow the universe to exist must have existed before the universe then, hmmm. What created the laws?

The laws have been the same from the beginning and are the same throughout the entirety of the universe?

For some strange reason my gut screams NO! to the above question and also screams NO! to the "laws of physics" somehow existing prior to the matter which they govern.

I'll continue with my current belief that pretty much anything is possible. In my opinion, 'science' has an infinite hill to climb to even begin to accurately describe what is happening in space now, let alone billions of years in the past or future.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by UdonNiedtuno

Originally posted by adjensen
Because the calculations are based on the laws that allow the universe to exist in the first place. Remove the laws, now you suddenly have made the existence impossible.


The laws that allow the universe to exist must have existed before the universe then, hmmm. What created the laws?


No one knows where they came from, though all appearances are that the universe depends on the laws, rather than the other way around.


The laws have been the same from the beginning and are the same throughout the entirety of the universe?


Depends on your definition of "beginning", but they've been around since the Big Bang, and they're immutable. They won't change. Which is a good thing, because, like I said, there's not much room for error in them.


In my opinion, 'science' has an infinite hill to climb to even begin to accurately describe what is happening in space now, let alone billions of years in the past or future.


Well, that's true and not so true -- science doesn't know everything... it knows an infinitesimal percentage of all the knowledge that there is, but in the field of cosmology, once the rules get sorted, knowing where something was in the past or will be in the future is mostly a matter of doing the maths. Why? Because of those laws that never change.





new topics
top topics
 
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join