Implosion theory Poll / Discussion

[Dean]

Will the universe implode? Is it in a continual cycle of explosions (big bang)/implosions)?

I think it makes a lot of sense, due to the laws of gravity.

[Sacha]

Based on my own spirituality I would have to say that the universe will not implode. The universe itself can not be explained - everything in it can be explained scientifically but the fabric of the universe itself can not. It works on a level far beyond our comprehension.

Also, gravity has nothing to do with the size of the universe. The universe already exists 100%. It is the size of our OBSERVABLE universe which is expanding - just what we see, not what exists. As light travels to earth, we are seeing things for the first time.

This concept I find extremely facinating. If we were floating somewhere 60 light years away and had a telescope that could zoom in on Earth, we would be watching World War II happen as if for the first time.

We are by no means the center of the universe - it does not grow around us - it does not grow. It doesn't play by the same rules we do, it IS the rules we follow.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Based on my own spirituality I would have to say that the universe will not implode.

This is the Science and Environment forum, not the Religion forum. Take that crap there.


The universe itself can not be explained - everything in it can be explained scientifically but the fabric of the universe itself can not.

Not true, see the concept of space-time.


It works on a level far beyond our comprehension.

Most people, given time, can understand relativity, why not you?


Also, gravity has nothing to do with the size of the universe. The universe already exists 100%. It is the size of our OBSERVABLE universe which is expanding - just what we see, not what exists.

No, the universe is actually expanding, the majority of light from other galaxies is red-shifted and therefore they are moving away from us.


This concept I find extremely facinating. If we were floating somewhere 60 light years away and had a telescope that could zoom in on Earth, we would be watching World War II happen as if for the first time.

True, but that's not how we tell if the universe is expanding or not.


We are by no means the center of the universe - it does not grow around us - it does not grow.

We only appear to be at the center of the expansion because everything is moving away from everything, like dots drawn on an expanding balloon. The universe is expanding.

As for dark matter, it does seem to make sense as an explanation for the "missing" mass that most galaxies seem to possess, but ir doesn't look like enough mass to prevent the universe from continually expanding.

Of course, the universe could just rip itself apart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip)

[Communism]

Hasn't dark matter already been proven to exist? I thought that was a certainty and no i don't think the universe will implode.

[Cult of Reason]

As the expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating, not slowing, I would think that implosion would not happen.

[Dean]

My idea on the implosion theory is that, because gravity pulls things together, eventually everything will have gravitated into an especially dense mass, perhaps creating a second big bang. questions like the potential creation of a black hole and the validity of the universe becoming cold and static give mystery to this equation, however. I myself am uncertain, because the latter argument holds a lot of weight as well as the implosion theory.

[dislatino]

Mixed feelings on this, i do not know enough about the actual science behind it, (if what scientists say is real and can be trusted that is...) we are the universe.

[Sacha]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 10:04 AM
This is the Science and Environment forum, not the Religion forum. Take that crap there.


Religion and spirituality are two different (but related) things. So you can take your crap elsewhere - I don't need your ignorance.

There is still an ultimately unanswered question as to why this all exists. Realitivity is great - blah blah blah. But again, it can only tell us so much.

What is beyond the universe? How can you apply the laws of science, gravity whatever until you ultimately know what we are being contained in? Perhaps the outside will always pose an opposite energy which will hold our universe together. Perhaps there IS some sort of ultimate energy with a conscousness that governs the workings of the universe? No one will ever be able to prove it because we can never observe it.

Science and environment do have very spiritual elements to them and I will forever stand by that as a student of enviornmental science and studies. Of course, I just didn't do too well in astronomy, but that had something to do with the five months of work I happened to not get done and seven months of lectures I happened to not go to.

[Noah]

Scientists know the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate thus, to my basic knowledge on this subject i'd say that the universe would not implode.

[ComradeRed]

I agree with the conjecture that the sum of the charges of the universe is zero, thus the electromagnetic repulsion/attraction is negligible; this is where gravity comes in to cause the collapse.

But because electromagnetic force is stronger than gravitational attraction, the universe wouldn't collapse, but oscillate.

I do not believe that dark matter really exists, however; so I had to vote "no" for that option.

[Zingu]

Wouldn't the universe just simply keep expanding till all heat in the universe is (almost) equally distributed everywhere? Making it effectively, cold, dark, and basically dead as most things would have turned to carbon or radiation?

[bezdomni]

Religion and spirituality are two different (but related) things. So you can take your crap elsewhere - I don't need your ignorance.
The only thing that relates them is superstition.



There is still an ultimately unanswered question as to why this all exists. Realitivity is great - blah blah blah. But again, it can only tell us so much.
And religion/spirituality is explaining it? :lol:

Try Unified Field theory...or if you like bullshit, look into String Theory. It's kinda scientific.


What is beyond the universe?
That's like asking "what time was it before time existed" or "what's further north than the north pole". The question is self-defeating, because EVERYTHING that exists INHERENTLY exists within the universe.


No one will ever be able to prove it because we can never observe it.
Then it logically does not exist.


Science and environment do have very spiritual elements to them and I will forever stand by that as a student of enviornmental science and studies
:rolleyes:

The environment is great...but Zeus' job has been outsourced to electrons.


Of course, I just didn't do too well in astronomy...
For some reason, that doesn't surprise me...


...but that had something to do with the five months of work I happened to not get done and seven months of lectures I happened to not go to.
Oh... :unsure:

[ComradeRed]

Wouldn't the universe just simply keep expanding till all heat in the universe is (almost) equally distributed everywhere? Making it effectively, cold, dark, and basically dead as most things would have turned to carbon or radiation? There are more things at work than merely temperature. Thermodynamics is a generalization of classical mechanics in a closed, dynamical system.

For the universe we have to take into account other charges and gravity; it is a special system that isn't the traditional "thermodynamically closed system".

Take everything, why even weak and strong forces, into effect when considering something as grand as the universe.

[anomaly]

ComradeRed and I had some talks about this previously.

Basically, I was very interested in theoretical physics.

But CR, I forget, if the universe is currently expanding, then the total gravity in the universe is not now enough to counteract electromagnetic (expulsionary) forces. So how does the universe implode? How is gravity added?

Also, are electromagnetic forces present everywhere in the universe? And where do they come from?

[ComradeRed]

But CR, I forget, if the universe is currently expanding, then the total gravity in the universe is not now enough to counteract electromagnetic (expulsionary) forces. So how does the universe implode? How is gravity added? The total number of particles, or at least charge and mass, that makes up the universe is finite if and only if the first law of thermodynamics is correct.

If this is true, then the electromagnetic charge will cause two like particles to repel, which is a source of inflation.

However, there is just as many positive charges as negative charges. So it would inflate, and retract, and oscillate in this manner.

This is, of course, using only electromagnetism; the other forces work in a similiar manner.



Also, are electromagnetic forces present everywhere in the universe? And where do they come from? A classical approximation of the electromagnetic field anywhere in the universe relative to a point charge would be the distance to the point under the charge squared times the coulomb factor (approximately 8.988*10^9).

It is present everywhere in the universe; if you want it precisely, it is far more sloppy in form requiring more difficult math. You'd use QED rather than classical electrodynamics.

And where does charge come from? I suspect that it comes from the structure of the particle, but no one really knows.

[RebelDog]

In anthropic terms I think we are doomed by the 2nd law which says that disorder will always increase and thus the universe will one day have no ordered systems such as living things.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The Universe is a closed system, right? Then isn't it subject to entropy?


Religion and spirituality are two different (but related) things. So you can take your crap elsewhere - I don't need your ignorance.

Their both baseless superstitions and have no place in a scientific forum.


There is still an ultimately unanswered question as to why this all exists. Realitivity is great - blah blah blah. But again, it can only tell us so much.

There is no "why" to the existance of the universe - that's projecting a human value on to a natural phenomenon. Why is the wrong question, how is more important.


What is beyond the universe?

Pointless question. The universe contains everything that exists, there is no "outside" to the universe.


How can you apply the laws of science, gravity whatever until you ultimately know what we are being contained in? Perhaps the outside will always pose an opposite energy which will hold our universe together. Perhaps there IS some sort of ultimate energy with a conscousness that governs the workings of the universe? No one will ever be able to prove it because we can never observe it.

If something does not effect the universe then it does not exist as effecting the universe is how we tell something exists.


Science and environment do have very spiritual elements to them and I will forever stand by that as a student of enviornmental science and studies.

Really? Such as what?


Of course, I just didn't do too well in astronomy, but that had something to do with the five months of work I happened to not get done and seven months of lectures I happened to not go to.

No surprise you're dragging all this spirituality crap into science then.

[colombiano]

This is the fate of the Universe or Our Milky Way. Also surf around the links after watching the video. Pretty interesting stuff.


VIDEo OF COSMIC COLLISION (http://hubblesite.org/discoveries/cosmic_collision/cosmic-movie.shtml)

Another intersting read

LINK******* (http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2004/07/text/)

[RaiseYourVoice]

I dont know bout implosion, but the galaxys are being pulled towards black whole more and more afaik, so the end is coming not matter how.

Dark matter is the only possible explanation for the movements within the universe at least for today. I'd guess it does exist too. Maybe the universe colapsing wouldn't actually be such a bad thing, maybe we can have a second try on world revolution after big bang nr.2. but than again, what tells us that our big bang was the first one? maybe it was big bang nr.2204 and there already existed communism..... lots of thing to think about but that might move into philosophie.

[ComradeRed]

Dark Matter is nothing more than Aether!!! Let it die all ready! Gravity works with nothing in between, electromagnetism works with nothing in between; everything works without anything in between!

We don't need it! Let the neo-Aetherists die out with it! Agggh! :angry:

[Cult of Reason]

ComradeRed, what do you support rather than Dark Matter? The variable gravity theory I heard about on that Horizon show by the Israeli they constantly showed eating apples? That one, I admit, I found to be more interesting than just the assertion that there must be more mass than there is.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 07:33 PM
ComradeRed, what do you support rather than Dark Matter?
I don't speak for ComradeRed, but there is, of yet, no empirical proof that dark matter exists. Ergo, I do not contend that there is something other than dark matter...simply that there is no dark matter.

Just like atheists don't say there is another god...there simply is no god.

[ComradeRed]

ComradeRed, what do you support rather than Dark Matter? The variable gravity theory I heard about on that Horizon show by the Israeli they constantly showed eating apples? That one, I admit, I found to be more interesting than just the assertion that there must be more mass than there is. I think that Einstein made a blunder with his "cosmological constant" (where the notion of dark matter is derived from).

The cosmological constant means that the universe is static, but it isn't. It is constantly expanding and contracting, and doing something!

Aether is Newtonian nonsense, Dark matter is simply String theorists' aether. We should really part with such dated superstitutions!

Everything works if there is nothing in between; that's why Einstein's special relativity is so popular! Not to mention correct.

Electromagnetism, gravity, and other forces work just fine without aether; and they work just as well without dark matter.

[Cult of Reason]

I think that Einstein made a blunder with his "cosmological constant" (where the notion of dark matter is derived from).

The cosmological constant means that the universe is static, but it isn't. It is constantly expanding and contracting, and doing something!

I thought that the consensus was that the cosmological constant should not have been there? The only evidence I have to the contrary are a few short phrases in The Universe in a Nutshell saying that "there might be a small cosmological constant", but it was pretty much ignored in the rest of the book, as far as I remember.


Aether is Newtonian nonsense, Dark matter is simply String theorists' aether. We should really part with such dated superstitutions!

Looking forward to a hypothetical Michelson-Morley Mark II? Despite the fact that I am not yet in any way involved with all this (though I hope to be after my degree) I think that it is quite needed. After all, people in my position seem to have been spoonfed string/M theory for what I think is a bit too long now. I don't know, maybe I lack patience.


Everything works if there is nothing in between; that's why Einstein's special relativity is so popular! Not to mention correct.

Electromagnetism, gravity, and other forces work just fine without aether; and they work just as well without dark matter.

So you are attributing all this trouble to the fact that the cosmological constant seems to have been rehabilitated? So, then, would there be no problem with "missing mass" if the cosmological constant was simply removed?

[ComradeRed]

I thought that the consensus was that the cosmological constant should not have been there? The only evidence I have to the contrary are a few short phrases in The Universe in a Nutshell saying that "there might be a small cosmological constant", but it was pretty much ignored in the rest of the book, as far as I remember. In cosmology, you can "choose" to work with a model that has the cosmological constant in it.

The cosmological constant has been a problem child for general relativity since Einstein created it.

Rarely, though, is it used; I myself don't use it, for example.



Looking forward to a hypothetical Michelson-Morley Mark II? Despite the fact that I am not yet in any way involved with all this (though I hope to be after my degree) I think that it is quite needed. After all, people in my position seem to have been spoonfed string/M theory for what I think is a bit too long now. I don't know, maybe I lack patience. It is said that if you give man the concept of "God" anything is justifiable morally; I think the same could be said for physicists and the number of dimensions.

With a virtually limitless number of dimensions, anything is justifiable.

I think that there is some amalgam of truth and fiction in String theory; I do think there is some "atom" of the particle, but I think the configurations of this "atom" rather than the "frequency" is responsible for the physical characteristics of a particle.

If I know one thing, it's that String theory in all its forms is wrong!



So you are attributing all this trouble to the fact that the cosmological constant seems to have been rehabilitated? So, then, would there be no problem with "missing mass" if the cosmological constant was simply removed? Well, I don't know! It's certainly something that needs investigation but we don't have the means.

Without sound reasoning to back up the existence of dark matter, there seems to be no reason to accept it.

It's something that is worth looking into, however; and I think I may look at some of the theory behind it.

[Janus]

I don't think that the universe will actually implode but we really don't have enough info. though theoretical physicists can also hypothesize. I am really not sure about dark matter and dark energy. They may or may not exist, no one really knows at this point.

[ComradeRed]

Well, "implode" in my opinion is more of a misnomer. "Contract" is a better word.

Sort of like a petrol-based engine; when the gasoline explodes, it becomes a gas and expands, which moves the piston. The piston then gets more gasoline and "contracts".

The universe is the same way; it expands and contracts, though not "from nothing, into nothing" as "implode" may suggest.

That is only my opinion on it, though; there really is no evidence to support it either way.

[Janus]

The universe is the same way; it expands and contracts
Sure, that can be understood and I would agree with that view as well. However, the hypothesis of an implosion seems rather unlikely but we really can't tell at this point, as you said.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 05:37 PM
Dark Matter is nothing more than Aether!!! Let it die all ready! Gravity works with nothing in between, electromagnetism works with nothing in between; everything works without anything in between!

We don't need it! Let the neo-Aetherists die out with it! Agggh! :angry:
I'm sure Peter Higgs would have something to say about that!

[ComradeRed]

And I'm sure Isaac Newton would have something to say about general relativity! But both Newton and Higgs would be wrong.

Like the graviton, the "Higgs boson" has absolutely no physical evidence of its very existence! This is just a little hint to me that Higgs, not general relativity, is wrong!

I really don't care what voodoo Higgs believes in, there is no proof of his boson existing.

[RebelDog]

Particles sometimes exist in theory before they are found physically. I am not saying that the Higg's Boson exists, but it would certainly explain a lot about mass if it did exist.
I have always been sceptical about the possibility of the graviton due to relativity being the geometry of space, but now I'm not so sure about whats being shaped by mass. I would like to know once and for all whether the Higgs particle exists and the graviton, but I live in a time where that cannot be said either way with certainty and humans have a tradition of being totally arrogant about science (I'm not refering to you) and dismissing posible new breakthroughs. Relativity doesn't fully explain our universe.

[dusk]

If somebody can tell me how far it is to the other end of the universe,
Then I will call him from now on, all the time I give a reply to that somebody or communicate on someway with that person I will call that person my master. :rolleyes: