Register to reply

Is the Universe Never Ending?

by Algren
Tags: ending, universe
Share this thread:
reggnar
#19
Jan25-12, 09:03 AM
P: 9
Quote Quote by Drakkith View Post
There is no evidence for this, and in fact there is probably more evidence that it is NOT like this given our observations on the accelerating expansion of the universe.
Quote Quote by bapowell View Post
Exactly.
What are you implying enlighten me
bapowell
#20
Jan25-12, 09:04 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,682
Quote Quote by reggnar View Post
What are you implying enlighten me
No need. You already have all the answers.
reggnar
#21
Jan25-12, 09:07 AM
P: 9
Quote Quote by bapowell View Post
No need. You already have all the answers.
So youre going to judge me by my age ?
reggnar
#22
Jan25-12, 09:13 AM
P: 9
I dont give what you think and your rude insult mr. "science advisor"
reggnar
#23
Jan25-12, 09:14 AM
P: 9
Learn some manners
phinds
#24
Jan25-12, 09:15 AM
PF Gold
phinds's Avatar
P: 6,356
Quote Quote by reggnar View Post
Thats where you lack understanding buddy, look at it from all perspectives. Because looking at it from a philosophical one makes more sense but lacks evidence unlike a scientific perspective. So instead of argueing with me look at it from a philosophical view and then try to find the scientific evidence. If not for you for me please.

But what do i know im only 16.

Pm me
If you want philosophy, go over to the philosoply forum. This is a science thread, and your admission that your point of view has no scientific evidence means it doesn't belong here.

Also, you may not have intended it, but I read your comment "Thats where you lack understanding buddy" as being quite rude. Drakkith spends a lot of time on this forum helping people gain understanding, so you'd do well to listen to him instead of being insulting.
reggnar
#25
Jan25-12, 09:22 AM
P: 9
Quote Quote by phinds View Post
If you want philosophy, go over to the philosoply forum. This is a science thread, and your admission that your point of view has no scientific evidence means it doesn't belong here.

Also, you may not have intended it, but I read your comment "Thats where you lack understanding buddy" as being quite rude. Drakkith spends a lot of time on this forum helping people gain understanding, so you'd do well to listen to him instead of being insulting.
Youre right. looking at it now it does seem rude,my apologies.
Drakkith
#26
Jan25-12, 09:25 AM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,892
Quote Quote by reggnar View Post
Thats where you lack understanding buddy, look at it from all perspectives. Because looking at it from a philosophical one makes more sense but lacks evidence unlike a scientific perspective. So instead of argueing with me look at it from a philosophical view and then try to find the scientific evidence. If not for you for me please.
This is Physics Forums, not Philosophy Forums. We deal with real science here, which involves things that are observable. If you like philosophy there is a subforum, but specific rules must be followed to avoid degeneration of threads into pure nonsense.

Quote Quote by reggnar View Post
Oh and we want to understand the universe sooo bad . Well you cant from looking at it in a narrow scientific point of perspective. You can only understand by using the knowledge of religion, philosophy, and science which also known as theology. Like h.p bhlavatski
Science is very different from religion and even from philosophy. It involves the use and application of the Scientific method, and is responsible for practically ALL advances in both knowledge and technology in the last several hundred years.(Arguably much longer) Neither religion nor philosophy actually observes nature and tries to understand it. Science does not look at nature and try to make it fit it's own laws, it looks at it and tries to find the laws that govern it. I think you would agree that given our ability to build a billion transistors on something the size of a fingernail, launch people into space, and a million other reasons involving the accumulation and application of knowledge that we have been pretty freaking successful.
Cosmo Novice
#27
Jan25-12, 09:25 AM
P: 366
Quote Quote by reggnar View Post
Learn some manners
At 16 years old I understood when people were displaying bad manners and when people were responding to ill advised comments with little or no reasoning - you should try and make the distinction!

Remember that most posters here are trying to help, Drakkith is a well respected poster so you should appreciate when he takes time to help you with your current lack of understanding.

I mean this in the kindest possible way and would always encourage learning. Being 16 does not exclude you from intelligent conversation or having meaningful insights or discussions, just try to moderate yourself and your ideas in line with the forum and you will get a lot out of it!

Cosmo
Algren
#28
Jan25-12, 11:58 AM
P: 47
Quote Quote by reggnar View Post
I dont give what you think and your rude insult mr. "science advisor"
Mr. Reggnar, if this gives you relief from any perspective: I am 16 too, that doesnt mean i have to be so rude or ungrateful like you are.

Dont say this:

Quote Quote by reggnar View Post
But what do i know im only 16.
Do not under estimate yourself, by saying that statement you yourself are implying that you do not aim to understand further.

======================================================================= =============================

Back to the topic:

So, universe is expanding, right...

and lets return to the place where we left the topic, about 10 posts ago, thanks to...nevermind:

By Phinds "Why do you see the two situations as related. That is, what does the heat death of the universe have to do with whether or not it started with a singularity?"

By saying "Death", kind sir, you automatically proved that it had a "Birth" right? Now, current observations are pointing to a "Dense Young Universe" billions of years ago, right?

One sec, how did you say they were unrelated to each other? Dude, its expanding, and it will perhaps have a death upto null radiation when it is very spread-out. Then, there must have been an earlier state when everything was close together and had extensive radiation?

Nice, with that single statement of urs, i proved u wrong.

So, are there any scientific proofs backing the existence of multiverses? i.e. many universes?

And, can they possibly be in multiple dimensions other than the ones we are currently present? Perhaps, the molecules might even be in a strange octahedrilon* shape.

*Some random 64 (8^2) dimensioned shape i made up.

======================================================================= ===================================

And about philosophy: I do think the same that its better to first look into philosphy and then derive its scientific proof, but no, thats what not is correct. Although its necessary to be 'philosophical' to some extent before further scientific progress, i.e. we must think about other ways and laws and imaginations of a particular state b4 we can take the next step. But that does not mean that we first go to philosophy and then derive reality from something which is just a well-thought-dream.

Religion is even more inaccurate than philosophy, and goes to explain stuff with what not miracles and etc. Religion and philosophy both try to define what is currently beyond the realms of science, but they cannot be assumed as perfectly true without scientific backing.
phinds
#29
Jan25-12, 01:22 PM
PF Gold
phinds's Avatar
P: 6,356
Quote Quote by Algren View Post
Nice, with that single statement of urs, i proved u wrong.
Actually, I am pretty much unable to follow your ramblings, so I can't be sure if you have "proved" anything, but I am confident that you have shown no connection between the beginning of the unverse and the end of the unverse other than that I used a common English word "death" to colloquilly descirbe the end, and you tied that, with no evident logic, to a "birth".
Alayah
#30
Jan25-12, 01:36 PM
P: 2
This is a very interesting topic.
Drakkith
#31
Jan25-12, 07:38 PM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,892
Quote Quote by Algren View Post

So, are there any scientific proofs backing the existence of multiverses? i.e. many universes?

And, can they possibly be in multiple dimensions other than the ones we are currently present? Perhaps, the molecules might even be in a strange octahedrilon* shape.

*Some random 64 (8^2) dimensioned shape i made up.
There are several theories that support a multiverse, but none of them have any evidence yet. String theory predicts 11 dimensions I believe, but they don't quite work the way you are imagining it.
cephron
#32
Jan25-12, 11:31 PM
P: 125
Quote Quote by Drakkith View Post
Neither religion nor philosophy actually observes nature and tries to understand it.
A small nitpick here. I think loads of philosophies and religions observe and try to understand nature--it's just that their goals, methodologies and assumptions are worlds different from those of science.


On topic: I'm curious about what Rob D meant when he said:
Quote Quote by Rob D View Post
Besides, if Hawking is right, bits of our universe are being cast off to somewhere.
I don't know what this is referring to. If it's black holes, I thought Hawking had just recently established that neither infalling energy nor information is lost...?
Chronos
#33
Jan26-12, 12:52 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Chronos's Avatar
P: 9,454
I think if we stick to observables, it makes more sense than 'wow' models.
bapowell
#34
Jan26-12, 06:58 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,682
Quote Quote by cephron View Post
A small nitpick here. I think loads of philosophies and religions observe and try to understand nature--it's just that their goals, methodologies and assumptions are worlds different from those of science.
They observe nature in a radically different way. Science teaches us to shape our views in accordance with evidence. Religion is the denial of evidence for the sake of preserving a preconceived picture of reality. That's the important difference.
cephron
#35
Jan27-12, 03:20 PM
P: 125
Quote Quote by bapowell View Post
They observe nature in a radically different way. Science teaches us to shape our views in accordance with evidence.
Yes, agreed.
Quote Quote by bapowell View Post
Religion is the denial of evidence for the sake of preserving a preconceived picture of reality. That's the important difference.
Not necessarily. Creationism doesn't speak for all of religion. I don't think the statement above is either a definition of religion, a necessary implication, or a common denominator across religions...

But again...on topic: found the article where Hawking shows that information is not lost in black holes. My mistake; I thought it was recent, but it's actually really old. Article is here: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week207.html
Doesn't this show that there are no "bits of our universe being cast off somewhere"? We get all the energy and information back.
Or when Rob D said
Quote Quote by Rob D View Post
Besides, if Hawking is right, bits of our universe are being cast off to somewhere.
Was he refering not to black holes but something else entirely?
Rob D
#36
Jan27-12, 08:31 PM
PF Gold
Rob D's Avatar
P: 28
Quote Quote by cephron View Post
Was he refering not to black holes but something else entirely?
No ceph it was blackholes precisely. It amounts to a paradox, something in which I feel Hawking revels, and is centered around the problem that all the conservation laws are broken whenever a BH "eats" matter and it aparently either reorders it in such a manner that we cannot detect it, something that doesn't meet the math or it puts it somewhere else. The question: Where do that matter go? Same for the energy and information swallowed. If it is all imperishable and cannot leave existance, where is it?

I Dinna Kin,
RD


Register to reply

Related Discussions
A never ending integral? Calculus & Beyond Homework 14
The never ending story. General Discussion 5
Ending WW3 Current Events 37
The new ending Astronomy & Astrophysics 10