WILL universe ever end?

Yes, the universe will eventually end. However, this is going to take billions and billions of years.

Scientifically
Eventually the effect of the expanding galaxies etc. created by the big bang will cease and all of the galaxies will be pulled back by gravity into the point from which the universe began. This in turn could create a new Big Bang and the cycle will contiune indefinately.

Religously
Wait for apocalypse. During this period all of life will end. Therefore for us at least the universe will end.

Unless you mean does the universe end (are there boundries to it) in which case I don't know. It is possible that the universe could have a 4th dimension so flying off one edge brings you back onto the other side. But we don't really know yet.

The universe is not only expanding, the expansion is accelerating. So its going to continue to expand forever until all stars die out.

well if expansion is acceleration, wouldn't it reach the point that it goes so fast that it begins to go back in time and retract

So the universe is continuing to expand. But what is it expanding into?? If it is expanding there must be something for it to expand into? But the universe is supposed to include everything there is. So maybe it's not that the universe is expanding but that the galaxies are just flying into space which before was empty.

Of course everything has to end at some point. The universe willl probably end when the Sun blows up or dies. That will take some billion years but it will eventually happen.

This is one of the most widely debated topics in science. On one extreme, you have creationists, who believe in the apocalypse, rapture, or other things of the sort. The other end (where I am located) believes mainly in one of two theories. There is the oscillating theory and the heat death theory (that's not the real name, but meh).
In the oscillating theory, the universe explodes (if you can say that). It expands until it reaches a critical point. At this critical point, the expansion in stopped by mass in the universe. It then begins to contract, until it reaches a nearly dimensionless clump of matter. It then "Bangs" outward and causes the cycle to start again.
The heat death theory is the same in the beginning, except the universe doesn't stop expanding. It continues expanding. Eventually, all matter in the universe is lead (too heavy to fuse). The temperature quickly drops to absolute zero. Black holes "dissolve", and there is no variation of energy in the universe. There may be energy, but it cannot be used for work.
That's a basic breakdown of all current theories. There is also the archaic steady-state theory, which matter is created at the center of the universe proportionate to the rate of expansion. This was disproved (strange things were found large distances away, stars redshifting & blueshifting away and towards us). As for what the universe is expanding into, no one really knows. One theory is that our universe is expanding into a multiverse. I can't explain it, so you might want to check wikipedia on that one. If you want information on the apocalypse or the rapture, go to church.

It probably will. everything that starts has an end, and if the big bang happened once, it could have happened hundreds of other times.

I think a better question is: WILL time ever end? because to us that's the main thing.

If time keeps going, then the universe, as we know it, is continuing. As Indi said, When (if) the Universe collapses in the big crunch, all the energy is still there, but the universe isn't really.

On one part, the universe is expanding. Also, energy tends to dispatch itself in order to be in the same amount everywhere.

Consider the nuclear reactions going on a bit everywhere in the universe. Big atoms split into smaller atoms, which will then split themselves. Then, the smallest atoms (hydrogen) fuses to create slighty bigger atoms. What if it all ended with a few atoms types?

But that was an old and weird theory, utmostly utopic. I'd tend to believe more in the Heat Death, as some pointed out here.

eventually the universe will be quadrillion time larger then it is now and be completely empty. then it will fall in on itself. That is my theory.

Big Bang

I have read many scientific theories about how the universe was created, all being very long winded theories, as if proof to the author’s high academic standings. Prof. Friedmann, William Lane Craig, John Leslie, Hawking, Penrose, Guth, Linde's, Albrecht, Steinhardt's, Tryon's and Gott have all added life to the Big Bang Cosmology question. ‘Einstein equation' that lies at the heart of the General Theory of Relativity gave power to the original Friedmann’s theory and Prof. Hawkins was dabbling with quantum maths to prove his point.

I am not an expert within this field however I do have my own ideas based on what I believe to be logical facts.

The first being you cannot manufacture something if you do not have the basic materials;

1. The universe exists

2. Something must have caused the creation

Perhaps there is no such thing as total emptiness and emptiness cannot exist. That the very emptiness of space created the big bang as emptiness has to contain something. Maybe that the mechanisms Quantum physics are not fully understood perhaps instead of two quarks there are four; two matter quarks and two anti-matters that if all four met the set quarks then cease to exist. Would it of been possible that the big bang was caused the eruption of separating pairs of quarks spiralling outwards forming two new universes one of matter and the other of antimatter.

Perhaps both universes eventually meet and join together to create a void prior to a new rebirth. Could it be that antimatter is very dense, could it be black holes are made up of antimatter a product of the big bang; perhaps there is only one universe? Lets leave that problem to the theorist most properly someone as bright as the late Prof. Hawkins will provide an answer.

Research Notes.

Big Bang Theory, currently accepted explanation of the beginning of the universe. The big bang theory proposes that the universe was once extremely compact, dense, and hot. Some original event, a cosmic explosion called the big bang, occurred about 13.7 billion years ago, and the universe has since been expanding and cooling.

The theory is based on the mathematical equations, known as the field equations, of the general theory of relativity set forth in 1915 by Albert Einstein. In 1922 Russian physicist Alexander Friedmann provided a set of solutions to the field equations. These solutions have served as the framework for much of the current theoretical work on the big bang theory. American astronomer Edwin Hubble provided some of the greatest supporting evidence for the theory with his 1929 discovery that the light of distant galaxies was universally shifted toward the red end of the spectrum (see Redshift). Once “tired light” theories—that light slowly loses energy naturally, becoming more red over time—were dismissed, this shift proved that the galaxies were moving away from each other. Hubble found that galaxies farther away were moving away proportionally faster, showing that the universe is expanding uniformly. However, the universe’s initial state was still unknown
In the 1940s Russian-American physicist George Gamow worked out a theory that fit with Friedmann’s solutions in which the universe expanded from a hot, dense state. In 1950 British astronomer Fred Hoyle, in support of his own opposing steady-state theory, referred to Gamow’s theory as a mere “big bang,” but the name stuck. Indeed, a contest in the 1990s by Sky & Telescope magazine to find a better (perhaps more dignified) name did not produce one.
The overall framework of the big bang theory came out of solutions to Einstein’s general relativity field equations and remains unchanged, but various details of the theory are still being modified today. Einstein himself initially believed that the universe was static. When his equations seemed to imply that the universe was expanding or contracting, Einstein added a constant term to cancel out the expansion or contraction of the universe. When the expansion of the universe was later discovered, Einstein stated that introducing this “cosmological constant” had been a mistake.
After Einstein’s work of 1917, several scientists, including the abbé Georges Lemaître in Belgium, Willem de Sitter in Holland, and Alexander Friedmann in Russia, succeeded in finding solutions to Einstein’s field equations. The universes described by the different solutions varied. De Sitter’s model had no matter in it. This model is actually not a bad approximation since the average density of the universe is extremely low. Lemaître’s universe expanded from a “primeval atom.” Friedmann’s universe also expanded from a very dense clump of matter, but did not involve the cosmological constant. These models explained how the universe behaved shortly after its creation, but there was still no satisfactory explanation for the beginning of the universe.
In the 1940s George Gamow was joined by his students Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman in working out details of Friedmann’s solutions to Einstein’s theory. They expanded on Gamow’s idea that the universe expanded from a primordial state of matter called ylem consisting of protons, neutrons, and electrons in a sea of radiation. They theorized the universe was very hot at the time of the big bang (the point at which the universe explosively expanded from its primordial state), since elements heavier than hydrogen can be formed only at a high temperature. Alpher and Hermann predicted that radiation from the big bang should still exist. Cosmic background radiation roughly corresponding to the temperature predicted by Gamow’s team was detected in the 1960s, further supporting the big bang theory, though the work of Alpher, Herman, and Gamow had been forgotten.
The big bang theory seeks to explain what happened at or soon after the beginning of the universe. Scientists can now model the universe back to 10-43 seconds after the big bang. For the time before that moment, the classical theory of gravity is no longer adequate. Scientists are searching for a theory that merges gravity (as explained by Einstein's general theory of relativity) and quantum mechanics but have not found one yet. Many scientists have hope that string theory, also known as M-theory, will tie together gravity and quantum mechanics and help scientists explore further back in time (see Physics: Unified Field Theory).
Because scientists cannot look back in time beyond that early epoch, the actual big bang is hidden from them. There is no way at present to detect the origin of the universe. Further, the big bang theory does not explain what existed before the big bang. It may be that time itself began at the big bang, so that it makes no sense to discuss what happened “before” the big bang.
According to the big bang theory, the universe expanded rapidly in its first microseconds. A single force existed at the beginning of the universe, and as the universe expanded and cooled, this force separated into those we know today: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. A theory called the electroweak theory now provides a unified explanation of electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force theory (see Unified Field Theory). Physicists are now searching for a grand unification theory to also incorporate the strong nuclear force. String theory seeks to incorporate the force of gravity with the other three forces, providing a theory of everything (TOE).
One widely accepted version of big bang theory includes the idea of inflation. In this model, the universe expanded much more rapidly at first, to about 1050 times its original size in the first 10-32 second, then slowed its expansion. The theory was advanced in the 1980s by American cosmologist Alan Guth and elaborated upon by American astronomer Paul Steinhardt, Russian American scientist Andrei Linde, and British astronomer Andreas Albrecht. The inflationary universe theory (see Inflationary Theory) solves a number of problems of cosmology. For example, it shows that the universe now appears close to the type of flat space described by the laws of Euclid’s geometry: We see only a tiny region of the original universe, similar to the way we do not notice the curvature of the earth because we see only a small part of it. The inflationary universe also shows why the universe appears so homogeneous. If the universe we observe was inflated from some small, original region, it is not surprising that it appears uniform.
Once the expansion of the initial inflationary era ended, the universe continued to expand more slowly. The inflationary model predicts that the universe is on the boundary between being open and closed. If the universe is open, it will keep expanding forever. If the universe is closed, the expansion of the universe will eventually stop and the universe will begin contracting until it collapses. Whether the universe is open or closed depends on the density, or concentration of mass, in the universe. If the universe is dense enough, it is closed.
The universe cooled as it expanded. After about one second, protons formed. In the following few minutes—often referred to as the “first three minutes”—combinations of protons and neutrons formed the isotope of hydrogen known as deuterium as well as some of the other light elements, principally helium, as well as some lithium, beryllium, and boron. The study of the distribution of deuterium, helium, and the other light elements is now a major field of research. The uniformity of the helium abundance around the universe supports the big bang theory and the abundance of deuterium can be used to estimate the density of matter in the universe.

From about 380,000 to about 1 million years after the big bang, the universe cooled to about 3000°C (about 5000°F) and protons and electrons combined to make hydrogen atoms. Hydrogen atoms can only absorb and emit specific colors, or wavelengths, of light. The formation of atoms allowed many other wavelengths of light, wavelengths that had been interfering with the free electrons, to travel much farther than before. This change set free radiation that we can detect today. After billions of years of cooling, this cosmic background radiation is at about 3 K (-270°C/-454°F).The cosmic background radiation was first detected and identified in 1965 by American astrophysicists Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson.
The Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) spacecraft, a project of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), mapped the cosmic background radiation between 1989 and 1993. It verified that the distribution of intensity of the background radiation precisely matched that of matter that emits radiation because of its temperature, as predicted for the big bang theory. It also showed that cosmic background radiation is not uniform, that it varies slightly. These variations are thought to be the seeds from which galaxies and other structures in the universe grew.
Evidence indicates that the matter that scientists detect in the universe is only a small fraction of all the matter that exists. For example, observations of the speeds at which individual galaxies move within clusters of galaxies show that a great deal of unseen matter must exist to exert sufficient gravitational force to keep the clusters from flying apart. Cosmologists now think that much of the universe is dark matter—matter that has gravity but does not give off radiation that we can see or otherwise detect. One kind of dark matter theorized by scientists is cold dark matter, with slowly moving (cold) massive particles. No such particles have yet been detected, though astronomers have made up fanciful names for them, such as Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs). Other cold dark matter could be nonradiating stars or planets, which are known as MACHOs (Massive Compact Halo Objects).
An alternative theory that explains the dark-matter model involves hot dark matter, where hot implies that the particles are moving very fast. Neutrinos, fundamental particles that travel at nearly the speed of light, are the prime example of hot dark matter. However, scientists think that the mass of a neutrino is so low that neutrinos can only account for a small portion of dark matter. If the inflationary version of big bang theory is correct, then the amount of dark matter and of whatever else might exist is just enough to bring the universe to the boundary between open and closed.
Scientists develop theoretical models to show how the universe’s structures, such as clusters of galaxies, have formed. Their models invoke hot dark matter, cold dark matter, or a mixture of the two. This unseen matter would have provided the gravitational force needed to bring large structures such as clusters of galaxies together. The theories that include dark matter match the observations, although there is no consensus on the type or types of dark matter that must be included. Supercomputers are important for making such models.
Astronomers continue to make new observations that are also interpreted within the framework of the big bang theory. No major problems with the big bang theory have been found, but scientists constantly adjust the theory to match the observed universe. In particular, a “standard model” of the big bang has been established by results from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), launched in 2001 (see Cosmology). The probe studied the anisotropies, or ripples, in the temperature of cosmic background radiation at a higher resolution than COBE was capable of. These ripples indicate that regions of the young universe were very slightly hotter or cooler, by a factor of about 1/1000, than adjacent regions. WMAP’s observations suggest that the rate of expansion of the universe, called Hubble’s constant, is about 71 km/s/Mpc (kilometers per second per million parsecs, where a parsec is about 3.26 light-years). In other words, the distance between any two objects in space that are separated by a million parsecs increases by about 71 km every second in addition to any other motion they may have relative to one another. In combination with previously existing observations, this rate of expansion tells cosmologists that the universe is “flat,” though flatness here does not refer to the actual shape of the universe but rather that the geometric laws that apply to the universe match those of a flat plane.

To be flat, the universe must contain a certain amount of matter and energy, known as the critical density. The distribution of sizes of ripples detected by WMAP show that ordinary matter—like that making up objects and living things on Earth—accounts for only 4.4 percent of the critical density. Dark matter makes up an additional 23 percent. Astoundingly, the remaining 73 percent of the universe is composed of something else—a substance so mysterious that nobody knows much about it. Called “dark energy,” this substance provides the antigravity-like negative pressure that causes the universe's expansion to accelerate rather than slow down. This “accelerating universe” was detected independently by two competing groups of astronomers in the last years of the 20th century. The ideas of an accelerating universe and the existence of dark energy have caused astronomers to substantially modify previous ideas of the big bang universe.
WMAP's results also show that cosmic background radiation was set free about 380,000 years after the big bang, later than was previously thought, and that the first stars formed only 200,000 years after the big bang, earlier than anticipated. Further refinements to the big bang theory are expected from WMAP, which continues to collect data. An even more precise mission to study the beginnings of the universe, the European Space Agency’s Planck spacecraft, is scheduled to be launched in 2007.

Wow, Chris and Ed, you two better spend more time on this and create a theory. People get paid for this stuff.

I am no expert and never made any statements to that effect.

So my own input can be laught at, scorned and rubbished or can it? From the facts that have been proven about the universe by science, many inteligent men have invented a very complexed set theories, these are only theories and not facts.

I have looked at the problem logically and analectically to obtain a possible simple solution. However its up to the reader to come up with their own opinion, or to make themselves look bright by offering a few red herrings that look good but is that really clever?

I dont think any of us here are bright enough to come up with the truth with out solid facts and not use the theories of others based on a mathimatical system that has not been fully proven.

THATS WHY THE EXPERTS STATE THEORY GUYS

My own rendering is of cause my theory and note I stated PERHAPS. Guys read my articals carefully before you make statements please,

Best regards

I agree, but read some of the threads, where as some members have quoted theories as facts.

Its just a point.

You cannot give augument agaist someones personal theory with a well known scientific theory as if that theory is a proven fact. How ever in all fairness you can quote the theory as a theory that shows a possible incorrectness.

Best regards

Okay thinks I can follow the drift dude but lets get back to the problem

Logic reasoning.

All complex problems have simple solutions such as:

1. The universe will end and there will be a rebirth a new universe out of the ashes of the old

2. Or there are many universes and many end and new ones are born

3. No the universe will never end

Logic solution

Let’s spin a coin and save an headache

Best regards

The solution is always very simple, but the finder normally makes the solution difficult to understand, normally to show that he or she is an expert.

The actual process of finding a solution can be an headache. In this case it’s not just a point of bathing in a hot bath a finalizing with expressive shout of eureka. As there is no true proven facts only theory models, ideas and a set of mathematic equations that could be flawed. I would really want to see the water be displaced before working out an excepted answer that would look feasible.

Tossing a coin sounds good to me at present, as the problem at hand can not be solved with out solid proof. However in reality I feel that a Logic possible answer is more acceptable to my own understanding and that’s the answer I have used in my book.

You all keep arguing on the issue but please add logic thought to your conclusions and try to be open minded and not use the views of others as they could be wrong. That’s the trouble with any science today there is not enough thought to the what if's only to the so call scientific rules in this case physics. Some of the rules are erroneous!

Of course my own possible answer could be wrong, I dont really care as I am only interested in enviromental brainwashing, culture, religion, politics and how this so called civilized society on earth can be at peace with each other.

Best regards

Ok

Ill let you have the last word.

What URLs you after pal?

Is this a case of pistols for two and coffee for one?

Oooppss! ed. Embarassed

No the source that Encarta used. All copyright observed (Newzealand reaseacher, published in a newzealand peridical)

But now let look at my argument and stop getting bitchy.

At a closer look one can find that any paradox arises only from an inconsistent physical concept or other errors in logic.

A quote from: http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk

There are others that can see the errors in some of the modules and within the maths

I can supply many more URL's if you wish plus of course quoting my sources.

Suggest you study the subject more, before making stupid mistakes thinking that every theory and module is so bloody correct. Keep an open mind.

What if!

Best Regards

Bob Johnson-Perkins

I very sorry

I made a mistake the research article did come from Encarta of course that was very naughty of me not to check my original research files.

Please forgive me Bill Gates, I neglected to give respect to your companies copyright. I will now put that right.

Big Bang Theory," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2007
http://encarta.msn.com © 1997-2007 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
© 1993-2007 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

Please do not sue me, I promise I will not do that again, cross my heart and hope to die.

Best Regards

Bob Johnson-Perkins

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It's the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead." ~ Albert Einstein (1930).

Very good site for the big bang
For: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

Very good argument against the big bang
Against http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_10.htm

Interesting questions and points here
http://members.tripod.com/debatorial_works/id125.htm

One should be carefull what you ask for.....

The main questions are what existed before the big bang and why did the universe seemly create it self from nothing? Okay we have some evidence that the Big Bang happened.

Is science going to admit that there is a super inteligence, being or even a god behind all this magic?

Huh no logic does not exist consern this science!

Best Regards

Bob Johnson-Perkins

What if physics is soluble?

"What if" it is not"

Keep an open mind my friend, an open mind!

Best Regards

Bob Johnson-Perkins

Oldnew, such humor, such panance, I am beginning to like you ducky.

I just love jokes, but perchance, was it sarcasms, no of course it’s below you scientific mind.

Ah ah “And an example that demonstrates it isn't, is what, precisely? Ed” um um, what you mean sweetheart.

I just love a Geek!

You seem to have a problem, I think you could be gay, or have a problem with women? Or is it your logic has gone, as you do sound very femine with the questions. I had a wife like you once.

"What if" means that one will alway question and experiment.

An openminded means not to be bias at someone elses ideas and thoughts. Never say never etc.

Best regards

Bob Johnson-Perkins

May be? But I thought you could have at least insulted me with the venom of an intelligent man, you hit me with your heavy feather below the belt like a thug.

I have seen any good input from you, go on be a dare devil write something really interesting and liven up this forum.

Be a man of words with true conviction not un-intellectual observations of a pack rat.

Hey and learn to insult better and not utter and bleat like a pregnant goat.

Best Regards

Bob Johnson-Perkins

Yes the forum has livened up!

If you dont want to be in an enjoyable forum Chris you know what to do.
Aproximatly 1113 boring posts, Chris wonderful history

No its okay chris (I am joking) I will leave this forum in a month or so as my input will dry up by then. Ill leave you alone and not answer your comments it seems your a bit touchy and cant take goading.

Best wishes

yea i thnkso,but not in our lifetime, they say every the life cycle of a galaxy every 66 million years, universe is porbably more than that...

An accepted age of the universe can be found here

http://webferret.search.com/click?wf,how+old+is+the+universe,,map.gsfc.nasa.gov%2Fm_uni%2Funi_101age.html,,aol[url]

Glad to be of some help.

Best regards

An estimate of the age of the Milky Way galaxy, on the other hand, can be found here
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_age_040817.html

Thanks chris

Regards

Bob

Long after we're all dead...I hope.

Yes I would put money on that.

However we will find someone will post that the doom and gloom will happen on the 5th July and we should all head towards the mountains.

However life is good

best Regards

all cosmological theories are highly speculative so i'll be more careful making statements about the fate of the universe!

As promised THE DRAFTS at:

http://silkmesh.freespaces.com/book.html

Best Regards

[/url]

Appeal to moderator. Is it OK to post adverts ?

Chris,

Actually I think the moderator should look at your advert about http://camres.frih.net/index.php Campaign for Science.

Chris I am not making any money out of my freely accessed Book of which campaigns for world understanding and world peace, read it find out for your self http://silkmesh.freespaces.com/ It may change the way you think. May stop you being a jerk and then your mummy will love you again. I am trying not to post here again in any case as I have better things to do such as painting and spending time on my very beautiful young wife.

Best regards

Dear Moderator,

I feel that you have a great sense of humor and that you some times get very anoyed at some of the bigots on this site.

When anybody gives an interesting view and livens up the forums others get jelous or stupid and state the most stupid and childish things mainly to look brainy. These people never post anything of real interest and seemly have fun rubbishing other peoples logic and sensible views.

I hope that my short stay here as given you some belly laughs. Thanks for letting me loose with out restriction.

I will not post here again unless asked by a forum member personally (bobearlscourt@yahoo.co.uk) or htpp://silkmesh.freespaces.com/contact.html.

Goodbye

Best Wishes

I have not pushed my site at all. Neither does it contain any sort of advertising, neither has it got any commercial relationship to any entity apart from me and the host provider which is a normal hosting agreement.
The specific reference was in reply to a request for information.

Guys, you are straying away from the topic, and at this time, that is the biggest issue I see.

My interpretation of the rules (and another mod may disagree here) is the Bikerman's link in his sig is fine. In reply to B-man's query, I believe that a link to Silkmesh's site is acceptable, as long as it is non-profit. Links where the user gets a material gain are not allowed.

BTW-for all practical purposes, the universe will end when I die....at least for me. Wink

I tried to read all the posts but it was too much to read, so I'll just respond to what I had read so far.

First, science tends to define the Universe as the totality of matter and energy. Space and time are elements of measure that are used by human beings to represent dimensions through which to understand matter and energy.

Second, there are two elements to knowledge: relative knowledge and absolute knowledge. Science operates through relative knowledge. Everything is based on our perceptions. Clearly the Universe is expanding into an infinite amount of space, but the dimensions of that space are meaningless to us because we have no markers with which to measure it. The "Universe," however, is measurable because it consists of discrete items. Absolute knowledge would then refer to a statement describing the totality of existence, beyond that which is perceivable/measurable.

Someone brought up the theory that the Universe will burn out and basically exist as useless energy and suggested that that wasn't really much to call a Universe precisely because all of the interactions we now use to describe the dimensions of the Universe will be null (including ourselves). The problem with this assertion and with relying exclusively on the relative knowledge of science is that all points of measure are, in fact, relative. It seems to me that this reasoning would imply that as soon as conscious life ceases to exist that the Universe would cease to exist because it is a construct of our own perceptual design. That our measures are useless in the burned out Universe doesn't mean much since our measures are also useless if we are not there to use them!

Absolute knowledge, however, is something several people in this thread are grasping for a glimpse of. They want to know what is beyond the matter and energy, what happens after everything has already happened. Well, I have no answers for you there except to say that I don't think you can ever derive your desired answers. They delve into understanding infinity.

Absolute Knowledge and Related knowledge? What we know and what we can surmise or theorize.

The universe will burn out and exist as useless energy? No energy left ( a dead universe)

What is beyond the matter and energy, what happens after everything has already happened. When the universe is dead what will happen? Logically speaking “NOTHING”

What most people want to know is why the universe exists?

Why are we here?

What happen before the Universe was created?

How did the big bang occur?

The answers are beyond our present knowledge and we can do is guess and create theories by using known physical rules and by spinning a coin or two.

WE ARE LIMITED IN OUR FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE QUESTIONS LET ALONE THE TRUTH.

There can never be an explaination with out absolute knowledge.

Your argument is good but you have not achieved any firm answer to the problem.

Regards

Hypothesis could mean any or all of the following:

Premise
Suggestion
Assumption
Guess
Assumption

As Theory means

hypothesis
speculation
assumption
notion
philosophy
concept
model

There is not a lot of difference.

Bikerman wrote

Your argument said it all!

So the scietific mind thinks its all right to call black white where one uses scientific language to prove that is so. Wow

Sorry I am not going to use a alot of scientific jargon to prove that

Bikeman stated:

Just one more point

Current theories have been proved to be incorrect and a new theory becomes the new current theory.

Many current theories are questioned, most of Einstien's theories have been under attack. Scientist have tried to modify to suit their own theories.

By saying that many theories are error prone because of lack of evidential fact can not be a point of any form of argument against the reality of the statement.

Regards

Regards

Do your own research your find I am right. read the theories on the big bang thoroughly you will find attacks on Einstiens theries there and where current thinking changed.

The theory that the world was flat, the theory that planets went around the world etc, ect ect ect. And even that the world is round? yes it pear shaped. The theories on the surface of mar,s, the rings of saturn. Please please dont insult my inteligence.

I respect your opinion. Sick of the argument we differ badly on this issue. You are obvously stuck in your groove. I respect a man with conviction and you should be proud to have such conviction even if I think there wrong.

I dont actually care chris I have much more inportant things to do, I am certainly not going to argue any more on this issue as I have my convictions as well.

Thanks for your input. No coffee for one and pistols for two to day thanks I am keeping my cool.

Best Regards and wishes.

So no one this century is bashing einstien? Wow

Yes I have read many and accept they are theories but just that in my conception of theories. Lets see what happens in the next ten years at least one of those theories will be corrected as many have been added to a corrected with other theories

Ill have to give you the last word, your the theory expert.

The ball game is yours as I want to know or have explainations.

Maybe you can explain now to me in layman terms, (I am sure many members on this forum would also be very interested in the samethings)

1. Why did the big bang occur

2. How did something get created out of nothing

3. What was here before the big bang.

4. Why do we exist

If you can do just that because those are the sort of questions I am interested in being answered.

I of course have aired my theories of which can be found in my book. But I admit they are just theories and I have and open mind for the truth.

My problems on each question is:

a. There is complete space nothingness
b. You can not expect to create something out of nothingness

Best Regards

Will the universe end?

probably

Will we be around to see it end?

probably not, what is more likely though is that the immediate solar system we are in, and the milky way galaxy will end sooner than the entire universe, but even that won't happen for a very very very long time. Then again we may be sooner that we think, I mean we don't know exactly how old this universe is, we can only estimate based on what we know so far we could be as close or as far as we may think from the universe ending. But then those sorts of predictions have been around since human civilization began, so we may as well enjoy things while we can.

I really hope it does...got to have my cat first...

Yeap, it will end. At some point in time the sun will just not have any energy anymore and will explode. This however will take another 15 billion years I thought. However I can be wrong with some zeros. It doesn't really matter, I won't be there to witness it. And probably in that period of time we will all move to another planet. They probably will figure out how to do that in millions of years. If wars did not end life on this planet any way. Or global warming, or many other things...So many things can happen before the sun goes down. And there is still plenty of time for us all to know what is best to do with our little planet. If we, for once, stop thinking about ourselves...

ya it will end because everything ends. i dont think the universe was created from a big bang i think it was just full of gas then the gas exploded causing solids to form in it. if you think about it. it doesnt make sense. how could all this matter just suddenly explode from a tiny little spec

at this rate..I think soo...

For me the question "will the universe end?" is trickier than it appears.

Because "end" means that there is a time and time is part of the universe, it is not an abstract thing that is outside the universe as our mind could let us think.
Time is changing with the condition of the universe. That is also why it is probably impossible to reach the very beginning of the universe (even if we can get closer and closer) because at the "beginning" time didn't exist (I put it into hyphens because the word beginning is difficult to use when there is no time, even it's a bit too much for our brains to imagine that "no time" exists)

So in my opinion the word "end" as a meaning only inside this universe. So the "end of universe" doesn't have a meaning because it would mean that there is a time outside the universe and that we can "watch" the universe from outside starting and ending.

Life may end... but the universe will always be there. It doesnt bare thinking about.. Sad

This is one of the most widely debated topics in science. On one extreme, you have creationists, who believe in the apocalypse, rapture, or other things of the sort. The other end (where I am located) believes mainly in one of two theories. There is the oscillating theory and the heat death theory (that's not the real name, but meh).
In the oscillating theory, the universe explodes (if you can say that). It expands until it reaches a critical point. At this critical point, the expansion in stopped by mass in the universe. It then begins to contract, until it reaches a nearly dimensionless clump of matter. It then "Bangs" outward and causes the cycle to start again.
The heat death theory is the same in the beginning, except the universe doesn't stop expanding. It continues expanding. Eventually, all matter in the universe is lead (too heavy to fuse). The temperature quickly drops to absolute zero. Black holes "dissolve", and there is no variation of energy in the universe. There may be energy, but it cannot be used for work.
That's a basic breakdown of all current theories. There is also the archaic steady-state theory, which matter is created at the center of the universe proportionate to the rate of expansion. This was disproved (strange things were found large distances away, stars redshifting & blueshifting away and towards us). As for what the universe is expanding into, no one really knows. One theory is that our universe is expanding into a multiverse. I can't explain it, so you might want to check wikipedia on that one. If you want information on the apocalypse or the rapture, go to church.
I can't believe he/she said that... what do you think?

Mr_CEO>In the oscillating theory, the universe explodes (if you can say that). It expands until it reaches a critical point. At this critical point, the expansion in stopped by mass in the universe. It then begins to contract, until it reaches a nearly dimensionless clump of matter. It then "Bangs" outward and causes the cycle to start again.

For any 21st-century cosmological model to have the remotest chance of being correct, it must account for the positive cosmological constant, λ, of General Relativity theory that was observed to exist in realty in 1998. None of these 20th-century-cyclic-tricks work with λ > 0.

Mr_CEO, it’s catch-up time for you, sir.

Roger Penrose, Lisa Randall, Edward Witten, Stephen Hawking (now he’s back in earthly realm) & edge.org will help bring you up to date.
Cheers for now, ed. Smile

Yoo people,
The univers is never ending cause its around as earth..

Lol, Well, this is what I truly belive.. Rolling Eyes

(Its explaining alot)

This question has intrigued me for some time. As, a Christian, I believe so. But scientifically, I don't think so. I think the outward explosion after the big bang created enough momentum so that celestial bodies will continue to expand.

I wonder where heaven is Sad

Her and the Other
Smallville
Photoshop/Gimp contest: Bondings' FACE!!
Will Jesus Return ? WHEN / HOW ...
how much caffeine do you consume daily? (on average)

AMD VS. Intel
Vegetarianism
Give me a HOLLA if you are a fervent agnostic!
Is Jesus Perfect?
Should they abolish prison rape?

9/11: Five years on
Is The Universe Finite?
Nuclear Peace !
What will happen after we die? Afterlife?