Announcement

**Lancer** · June 19, 2006, 02:24

I just wanted to say something you guys didn't understand. It was only fair.

**Urban Ranger** · June 19, 2006, 02:24

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Lancer
Btw, granite flows, did you know that Geronimo?

Granite does flow . . . under enormous pressure, very, very slowly. All rocks do.

I am not a structrual engineer or material scientist, but AFAIK granite is consisted of crystals, and they don't technically "flow." IOW solids don't flow, only supercooled liquids do. If it's under enormous pressure the crystal lattices fracture.

**KrazyHorse** · June 19, 2006, 02:25

The "bounce" they are speculating about would have occurred during a compression. The Universe reaches a very small size, then "bounces" back and begins expanding again. What the hell does this have to do with an end to expansion?

**Lancer** · June 19, 2006, 02:29

You're speculating that the end of expansion, a contraction, won't happen. I'm speculationg that the contraction is the expansion in a universe that changes its laws when things get too thin. The expansion becomes the contraction.

Reverse the polarity!

**KrazyHorse** · June 19, 2006, 02:30

Originally posted by Lancer
I'm speculationg that the contraction is the expansion in a universe that changes its laws when things get too thin

Why would you at all assume that this is the case? We have neither experimental nor theoretical reasons to believe that such a change would take place.

**Seeker** · June 19, 2006, 02:54

I'm not saying it's 'proof' of anything except one thing - - that there is not total consensus. I'm not trying to 'prove' anything at all, I'm just saying that room for alternative theories exists.

"Even if you assume that the Universe must necessarily have already undergone one compression, it does not at all imply that it needs to undergo another one. "

Now that you're assuming and talking about previous universes which must have beem like ours....isn't it a safe assumption that whatever process collapsed the last one would also collapse this one? Why not?

I really don't see why not....same amount of matter/energy, I assume the same physical laws, etc, so what I'm trying to say is...you look at two essentially identical processes (the previous universe and this one) and for some reason assume that one will not be essentially like the other?

I mean, when we talk about stellar formation or planet formation aren't we allowed to assume that what happened to older, similar systems will also happen to ours? If you admit as an 'accetpable' tenable hypothesis an older universe than why not apply the same logic? I just don't see the foolishness.

EDIT: I'm not propsing a mechanism of course just saying an unknown mechanism.

EDIT2: On the 'proof' subject...(the scientists own words, not the reporters) (his study)"systematically establishes its existence and deduces properties of its spacetime geometry."

Are you using a non-laypersons definition of 'proof'? I mean to me when he uses words like that he sounds really sure he's actually learned something new rather than navel-gazing.

What is the 'it' Ashtekar is referring to whose existence his team believes has been (avoids the word proof) "systematically established...with its properties deduced..."?

**Lancer** · June 19, 2006, 03:10

I assume that's the case because the if the universe bounced before it is likely to do so again. That means if the universe is in a constant expansion without end, then it must be able to expand to its bounce 'point'.

**Lancer** · June 19, 2006, 03:54

What is distance and motion to an alternate dimention about which we know nothing? If time and place as we know it didn't exist in the 'beginning' of the universe, (until laws became established) why does distance and motion have to exist at its 'end', when laws have been revoked?

**Flip McWho** · June 19, 2006, 05:33

I really don't see why not....same amount of matter/energy, I assume the same physical laws, etc, so what I'm trying to say is...you look at two essentially identical processes (the previous universe and this one) and for some reason assume that one will not be essentially like the other?

That's one huge assumption about the universe that can't really be proved. They have to work with what this universe gives them, not what may have happened in a universe that may have happened before.

**TheStinger** · June 19, 2006, 05:54

Could it be that all this has been casued by people crossing the streams of their Proton packs specificaly against the advice of Dr Raymond Sengler.

**Addled Platypus** · June 19, 2006, 07:37

once our measley solar system gets snuffed, the universe will conitue on until the milkay way galaxy and andromeda galaxy collide

on or about 3 billion years

Attached Files

**Jon Miller** · June 19, 2006, 10:38

Originally posted by Seeker
I'm not saying it's 'proof' of anything except one thing - - that there is not total consensus. I'm not trying to 'prove' anything at all, I'm just saying that room for alternative theories exists.

"Even if you assume that the Universe must necessarily have already undergone one compression, it does not at all imply that it needs to undergo another one. "

Now that you're assuming and talking about previous universes which must have beem like ours....isn't it a safe assumption that whatever process collapsed the last one would also collapse this one? Why not?

I really don't see why not....same amount of matter/energy, I assume the same physical laws, etc, so what I'm trying to say is...you look at two essentially identical processes (the previous universe and this one) and for some reason assume that one will not be essentially like the other?

I mean, when we talk about stellar formation or planet formation aren't we allowed to assume that what happened to older, similar systems will also happen to ours? If you admit as an 'accetpable' tenable hypothesis an older universe than why not apply the same logic? I just don't see the foolishness.

EDIT: I'm not propsing a mechanism of course just saying an unknown mechanism.

EDIT2: On the 'proof' subject...(the scientists own words, not the reporters) (his study)"systematically establishes its existence and deduces properties of its spacetime geometry."

Are you using a non-laypersons definition of 'proof'? I mean to me when he uses words like that he sounds really sure he's actually learned something new rather than navel-gazing.

What is the 'it' Ashtekar is referring to whose existence his team believes has been (avoids the word proof) "systematically established...with its properties deduced..."?

People like their own research to be important..

JM

**KrazyHorse** · June 19, 2006, 10:44

What Jon said.

**KrazyHorse** · June 19, 2006, 10:46

Originally posted by Platypus Rex
once our measley solar system gets snuffed, the universe will conitue on until the milkay way galaxy and andromeda galaxy collide

a) Why would the collision of two galaxies end the Universe?

b) Anybody living in either galaxy is unlikely to notice the "collision" unless they're actually interested in astronomical observation. The likelihood is it will not disturb a single solar system in either galaxy. Galaxies are mostly empty space.

**DaShi** · June 19, 2006, 14:55

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Yeah, that's it. Thanks.

So you just believe it because Hawkings says so, even if you don't understand it?

Announcement

What will happen to the universe?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment