End of universe theories (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Wednesday, July 01, 2015, 00:55 (3433 days ago)
Big Rip vs. Big Freeze:-http://phys.org/news/2015-06-cosmic-stickiness-favors-big-rip.html-"One scenario, dubbed the "Big Freeze," predicts that after 100 trillion years or so the universe will have grown so vast that the supplies of gas will become too thin for stars to form. As a result, existing stars will gradually burn out, leaving only black holes which, in turn, slowly evaporate away as space itself gets colder and colder.-"An even more radical scenario is the "Big Rip." It is predicated on a type of "phantom" dark energy that gets stronger over time. In this case, the expansion rate of the universe becomes so great that in 22 billion years or so material objects begin to fall apart and individual atoms disassemble themselves into unbound elementary particles and radiation."-Comment: This article anticipates a definite end, nothing cyclical. It describes a universe that has a definite beginning and a definite end. This means a new universe will have to have a new creation.
End of universe theories
DAVID: Big Rip vs. Big Freeze:-http://phys.org/news/2015-06-cosmic-stickiness-favors-big-rip.html-QUOTE: "One scenario, dubbed the "Big Freeze," predicts that after 100 trillion years or so the universe will have grown so vast that the supplies of gas will become too thin for stars to form. As a result, existing stars will gradually burn out, leaving only black holes which, in turn, slowly evaporate away as space itself gets colder and colder.-"An even more radical scenario is the "Big Rip." It is predicated on a type of "phantom" dark energy that gets stronger over time. In this case, the expansion rate of the universe becomes so great that in 22 billion years or so material objects begin to fall apart and individual atoms disassemble themselves into unbound elementary particles and radiation." DAVID: Comment: This article anticipates a definite end, nothing cyclical. It describes a universe that has a definite beginning and a definite end. This means a new universe will have to have a new creation.-Great balls of fire, folks, I predict that in just 100 years' time there will be what we experts call the “Big Oops”. Someone will realize that there have been some almighty blunders in current calculations and observations, and the universe is just going to go on doing what it's always done - pumping things out, sucking things in, building and demolishing for ever and ever, amen. Please can I have a grant?
End of universe theories
by David Turell , Wednesday, July 01, 2015, 19:36 (3432 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Comment: This article anticipates a definite end, nothing cyclical. It describes a universe that has a definite beginning and a definite end. This means a new universe will have to have a new creation[/i]. > > dhw: Great balls of fire, folks, I predict that in just 100 years' time there will be what we experts call the “Big Oops”. Someone will realize that there have been some almighty blunders in current calculations and observations, and the universe is just going to go on doing what it's always done - pumping things out, sucking things in, building and demolishing for ever and ever, amen. Please can I have a grant?-No. You forget that space may be concave or convex or flat. Every evidence for the past 50 years says flat, so we get either rip or cold, unless the evidence has a drastic change, which I do not expect.
End of universe theories
DAVID: Big Rip vs. Big Freeze:-http://phys.org/news/2015-06-cosmic-stickiness-favors-big-rip.html-DAVID: Comment: This article anticipates a definite end, nothing cyclical. It describes a universe that has a definite beginning and a definite end. This means a new universe will have to have a new creation.-Dhw: Great balls of fire, folks, I predict that in just 100 years' time there will be what we experts call the “Big Oops”. Someone will realize that there have been some almighty blunders in current calculations and observations, and the universe is just going to go on doing what it's always done - pumping things out, sucking things in, building and demolishing for ever and ever, amen. Please can I have a grant? -DAVID: No. You forget that space may be concave or convex or flat. Every evidence for the past 50 years says flat, we get either rip or cold, unless the evidence has a drastic change, which I do not expect.-Yea verily, the voice of him that crieth in the wilderness... I prophesy that in 100 years current beliefs will be laughed at, but you know I'm wrong because other beliefs would contradict current beliefs. Yep. But I'm mightily impressed by your grasp of what will happen in 22 billion years, or 100 trillion years. I'd like to perfect my own theory about what will happen in 100 quadrillion years, so can I please rely on your support for my grant application?
End of universe theories
by David Turell , Thursday, July 02, 2015, 21:55 (3431 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Big Rip vs. Big Freeze: > > http://phys.org/news/2015-06-cosmic-stickiness-favors-big-rip.html > > DAVID: Comment: This article anticipates a definite end, nothing cyclical. It describes a universe that has a definite beginning and a definite end. This means a new universe will have to have a new creation. > > dhw: Yea verily, the voice of him that crieth in the wilderness... I prophesy that in 100 years current beliefs will be laughed at, but you know I'm wrong because other beliefs would contradict current beliefs. Yep. But I'm mightily impressed by your grasp of what will happen in 22 billion years, or 100 trillion years. I'd like to perfect my own theory about what will happen in 100 quadrillion years, so can I please rely on your support for my grant application?-You've neatly skipped over my comment that a new creation will be required.
End of universe theories
DAVID: Big Rip vs. Big Freeze:-http://phys.org/news/2015-06-cosmic-stickiness-favors-big-rip.html-DAVID: Comment: This article anticipates a definite end, nothing cyclical. It describes a universe that has a definite beginning and a definite end. This means a new universe will have to have a new creation.-Dhw: Great balls of fire, folks, I predict that in just 100 years' time there will be what we experts call the “Big Oops”. Someone will realize that there have been some almighty blunders in current calculations and observations, and the universe is just going to go on doing what it's always done - pumping things out, sucking things in, building and demolishing for ever and ever, amen. Please can I have a grant? -DAVID: No. You forget that space may be concave or convex or flat. Every evidence for the past 50 years says flat, we get either rip or cold, unless the evidence has a drastic change, which I do not expect.-Dhw: Yea verily, the voice of him that crieth in the wilderness... I prophesy that in 100 years current beliefs will be laughed at, but you know I'm wrong because other beliefs would contradict current beliefs. Yep. But I'm mightily impressed by your grasp of what will happen in 22 billion years, or 100 trillion years. I'd like to perfect my own theory about what will happen in 100 quadrillion years, so can I please rely on your support for my grant application?-DAVID: You've neatly skipped over my comment that a new creation will be required. -Even if I believed that the universe had a definite beginning, and even if I believed that the universe would have a definite end, that still wouldn't mean that it was deliberately and consciously created by a mind that never had a beginning and presumably will never have an end. Nor would it mean that a new creation would be required. Required by what? -Meanwhile, you've neatly skipped over my complaint that you know my prophecy is wrong because it contradicts current beliefs which I have prophesied will be found to be wrong.
End of universe theories
by David Turell , Friday, July 03, 2015, 20:06 (3430 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: You've neatly skipped over my comment that a new creation will be required. > > > dhw: Even if I believed that the universe had a definite beginning, and even if I believed that the universe would have a definite end, that still wouldn't mean that it was deliberately and consciously created by a mind that never had a beginning and presumably will never have an end. Nor would it mean that a new creation would be required. Required by what? -If one wishes for another universe it would have to be created as this one was. It appears under all theories, except the parallel membrane theory of Steinhardt and Turok, the universe is not an eternal series of expansions and retractions and therefore a new one requires a recreation. > > dhw: Meanwhile, you've neatly skipped over my complaint that you know my prophecy is wrong because it contradicts current beliefs which I have prophesied will be found to be wrong.-I don't think I'll join you on your Tibetan guru's mountaintop and will stick with current scientific thought, which you use when you like it ( as in sentient single cells).