It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by NorEaster
Originally posted by xxshadowfaxx
I didn't realize there was even a conspiracy surrounding infinity..... really? So what do we call things that appear endless? Oh and, whats the highest number we can count to?
Endless is not the same as infinite. Infinite extends in both directions. Endless only extends in one direction. Big difference between the two.
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by spy66
The universe won't expand for ever. What ever gave you that idea?
I don't know what gave him that idea, but that's what current cosmological observations show -- the universe is expanding, and that expansion is accelerating. For it to NOT expand forever it would either have to be contracting, or for the expansion to be decelerating, because the means by which either of those can happen is through the universe itself (gravitational attraction) so we know that it won't happen, and the universe will expand forever.
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by spy66
The universe won't expand for ever. What ever gave you that idea?
I don't know what gave him that idea, but that's what current cosmological observations show -- the universe is expanding, and that expansion is accelerating. For it to NOT expand forever it would either have to be contracting, or for the expansion to be decelerating, because the means by which either of those can happen is through the universe itself (gravitational attraction) so we know that it won't happen, and the universe will expand forever.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by spy66
The universe won't expand for ever. What ever gave you that idea?
I don't know what gave him that idea, but that's what current cosmological observations show -- the universe is expanding, and that expansion is accelerating. For it to NOT expand forever it would either have to be contracting, or for the expansion to be decelerating, because the means by which either of those can happen is through the universe itself (gravitational attraction) so we know that it won't happen, and the universe will expand forever.
Wont stars use up all their fuel? and without stars what are galaxies? and without galaxies what is expanding in the universe?
also relevant; I personally dont know the answer to this question but do all atoms decay? or can an asteroid exist unbotherd in space for....ever? If atoms can remain a perfect state of stability forever.. then I guess we can assume that in 99999999999999999x999999999999 billion light years there will be asteroids floating around..... but if by then stars radiation is completely exhausted into the space of the universe, and galaxies are non existent.. what the landscape of the universe will be like and how those eternal asteroids will be reacting to the physical conditions of the universe at that time...will perhaps be different then we are used to, in terms of what an asteroid is...edit on 16-12-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by spy66
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by spy66
The universe won't expand for ever. What ever gave you that idea?
I don't know what gave him that idea, but that's what current cosmological observations show -- the universe is expanding, and that expansion is accelerating. For it to NOT expand forever it would either have to be contracting, or for the expansion to be decelerating, because the means by which either of those can happen is through the universe itself (gravitational attraction) so we know that it won't happen, and the universe will expand forever.
Why cant the expanding universe become infinite "Stationary" ?
Originally posted by ImaFungi
Wont stars use up all their fuel? and without stars what are galaxies? and without galaxies what is expanding in the universe?
Originally posted by spy66
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by spy66
The universe won't expand for ever. What ever gave you that idea?
I don't know what gave him that idea, but that's what current cosmological observations show -- the universe is expanding, and that expansion is accelerating. For it to NOT expand forever it would either have to be contracting, or for the expansion to be decelerating, because the means by which either of those can happen is through the universe itself (gravitational attraction) so we know that it won't happen, and the universe will expand forever.
Why cant the expanding universe become infinite "Stationary" ?
The infinite is a void of some sort, just not like the void of our universe. Why cant our universe be expanding into that infinite void?
What physical law would prevent it from doing so?
Originally posted by spy66
Originally posted by ImaFungi
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by spy66
The universe won't expand for ever. What ever gave you that idea?
I don't know what gave him that idea, but that's what current cosmological observations show -- the universe is expanding, and that expansion is accelerating. For it to NOT expand forever it would either have to be contracting, or for the expansion to be decelerating, because the means by which either of those can happen is through the universe itself (gravitational attraction) so we know that it won't happen, and the universe will expand forever.
Wont stars use up all their fuel? and without stars what are galaxies? and without galaxies what is expanding in the universe?
also relevant; I personally dont know the answer to this question but do all atoms decay? or can an asteroid exist unbotherd in space for....ever? If atoms can remain a perfect state of stability forever.. then I guess we can assume that in 99999999999999999x999999999999 billion light years there will be asteroids floating around..... but if by then stars radiation is completely exhausted into the space of the universe, and galaxies are non existent.. what the landscape of the universe will be like and how those eternal asteroids will be reacting to the physical conditions of the universe at that time...will perhaps be different then we are used to, in terms of what an asteroid is...edit on 16-12-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)
Asteroids wont last for ever in the vacuum of space. Because the compressed mass of the asteroid is surrounded by a vacuum. There is a pressure differential between the matter making up the asteroid and the vacuum space surrounding it.
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by ImaFungi
Wont stars use up all their fuel? and without stars what are galaxies? and without galaxies what is expanding in the universe?
That doesn't have anything to do with it -- we're talking about the expansion of space, and it doesn't matter what, if anything is in that space. Theoretically, at the very end, even atoms are torn apart as the minute space that they are in expands.
See my thread from last July: A Prediction you can bank on: It's the End of the Universe As We Know It…
Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by ImaFungi
Stars using up their fuel doesn't make a solar system cease to exist, so your premise that without stars, there are no galaxies and without galaxies there isn't anything to expand is flawed.
Originally posted by Kashai
Researchers Find Evidence of Other Universes Lurking in the Cosmic Background
Seems an infinite Universe seems valid after all.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by ImaFungi
Stars using up their fuel doesn't make a solar system cease to exist, so your premise that without stars, there are no galaxies and without galaxies there isn't anything to expand is flawed.
ok so solar systems exist without stars?
so there will never be a time in the universe where no stars exist?
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by ImaFungi
Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by ImaFungi
Stars using up their fuel doesn't make a solar system cease to exist, so your premise that without stars, there are no galaxies and without galaxies there isn't anything to expand is flawed.
ok so solar systems exist without stars?
If a star "burns out", do you think that the planets around it just vanish?
so there will never be a time in the universe where no stars exist?
As I told you, and referenced an article to you on the subject, at some point in the future, possibly 16 billion years, the universal expansion will be at a point that the whole of reality is ripped apart. At that time, no stars will exist, because nothing will exist.
Last month, it was Oxford’s Roger Penrose claiming that he’d found evidence of a cyclical universe in patterns of concentric circles in the CMB, suggesting our universe is just one of many that have come before it (and will come after it). Now, another group of researchers are claiming the CMB contains evidence of other universes that exist concurrently (and outside of) our own.
The University College team went looking for “cosmic bruises” in the CMB that indicate places where other universes collided with our own at some point, and it claims to have found them in data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe[(WMAP), which has been measuring temperature differences in the CMB over the past decade. If indeed the spots are found to be “cosmic bruises,” it would lend a lot of credence to the idea that there are other universes out there that at some point collided with our own.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
about your second quote... ok.. at that point nothing will exist... you dont really mean nothing though... and you will have to define. reality... and define space... and describe where all the energy will go that cannot be destroyed?
Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by ImaFungi
The article explains....
Last month, it was Oxford’s Roger Penrose claiming that he’d found evidence of a cyclical universe in patterns of concentric circles in the CMB, suggesting our universe is just one of many that have come before it (and will come after it). Now, another group of researchers are claiming the CMB contains evidence of other universes that exist concurrently (and outside of) our own.
The University College team went looking for “cosmic bruises” in the CMB that indicate places where other universes collided with our own at some point, and it claims to have found them in data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe[(WMAP), which has been measuring temperature differences in the CMB over the past decade. If indeed the spots are found to be “cosmic bruises,” it would lend a lot of credence to the idea that there are other universes out there that at some point collided with our own.
What alternative explanation would you be prepared to present to "Nature"?
Any thoughts?
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by ImaFungi
about your second quote... ok.. at that point nothing will exist... you dont really mean nothing though... and you will have to define. reality... and define space... and describe where all the energy will go that cannot be destroyed?
I would suggest that you read the thread that I linked earlier, and read the source article that is cited in the OP of that thread.