# 'The Universe is slowly dying,' study shows with unprecedented precision



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 11, 2015)

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/10/us/universe-dying/index.html


			
				CNN said:
			
		

> Based on those observations, they have confirmed the cosmos is radiating only half as much energy as it was 2 billion years ago.


So sad.


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 11, 2015)

But is degradation linear or is it logarithmic (or something else)? If it's linear, then we have 2 billion years left. If it's not, then the time span might be 8 times of that and more...


----------



## ShiBDiB (Aug 11, 2015)

Fuck off..

We still know a fraction of a percent of the information necessary to even pretend to make a statement regarding the life cycle of the universe.


----------



## Lionheart (Aug 11, 2015)

ShiBDiB said:


> Fuck off..
> 
> We still know a fraction of a percent of the information necessary to even pretend to make a statement regarding the life cycle of the universe.



Agreed, except for the profanity.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 11, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> But is degradation linear or is it logarithmic (or something else)? If it's linear, then we have 2 billion years left. If it's not, then the time span might be 8 times of that and more...


I think linear.  The amount of radiation is halving every 2 billion years more or less.  Remember the universe is 13 billion years old.  It won't be all gone in another 2 billion years, it will probably just be half what it is now.


----------



## P4-630 (Aug 11, 2015)

And if it's true, I would not be around anymore when the end is there anyway


----------



## Agility (Aug 11, 2015)

P4-630 said:


> And if it's true, I would not be around anymore when the end is there anyway



Then do make sure there are no babies from you


----------



## silkstone (Aug 11, 2015)

Don't believe those damn universe ending alarmist lefties!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 11, 2015)

It isn't "ending," it simply running out of mass to convert to energy.


----------



## Zero3606 (Aug 11, 2015)

All jokes aside. We have no clue to how the universe works. It is totally bigger than use and probably older than what we know. Humans dumped in the middle of the situation and we are guess and coming up with theories that try to understand it all. Granted the theory my work for a situation or for that time, but as time passes that theory becomes obsolete. Its like putting a puzzle together that billions of miles big with no picture to to match the pieces.


----------



## 64K (Aug 11, 2015)

Scientists say that some stars may have a lifespan in the trillions of years and new stars are still forming but apparently at a much lower rate than billions of years ago

http://www.popsci.com/science/artic...e-old-and-universe-making-hardly-any-new-ones

I guess it makes sense that eventually the universe will become dark and too cold for life to exist at near absolute zero unless there are intelligent creatures with the tech to continue.

The vast amount of time before that happens is incredible. It is believed that around 5 billion years from now our own star will become a red giant and incinerate the Earth. If scientists are saying some stars could have a lifespan of trillions of years and we take "trillions" to be at least 2 trillion then our own planet will be dead in 1/400th the time it takes for the last of the stars to burn out.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 11, 2015)

Exactly, which begs the question of whether or not there is a mechanism to rejuvenate the universe.  Do big bangs recur?  How does dark matter play into it, if at all? Is there a solution in the anomaly that is the accelerating expansion of the universe?  What lies beyond 14 billion light years away?

White dwarfs I bet last a very, very long time.  Still, it makes me sad.  Something we're taught since childhood that the universe is infinite.  That may be, but what use is an infinite universe that is dark and almost completely devoid of life.  It's a depressing thought.


----------



## Mindweaver (Aug 11, 2015)

Not to many years ago people were sure the world was flat... Those people create maps that looked real, and later when we had the technology we proved a lot of those map makers where wrong. Big lies are created for small minds. I'll believe it all when I see it. I'm not saying this to upset anyone and just offering a little food for thought. I want to believe it all too, but sometimes you just have to take a step back and say, "really".


----------



## a_ump (Aug 11, 2015)

hold on...let me get out my calendar and mark the ending of the universe.


----------



## Jborg (Aug 11, 2015)

We should be more worried about discovering things on our own planet.... Dunno why were out in space when we havent even explored 5% of the oceans. Not saying space exploration is a negative thing.... but shit, our priorities are a bit skewed.....


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 11, 2015)

Space is actually more accessible than the deepest parts of the oceans.  That is to say, a vacuum is easier to explore than an extreme pressure environment.


----------



## silkstone (Aug 11, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Exactly, which begs the question of whether or not there is a mechanism to rejuvenate the universe.  Do big bangs recur?  How does dark matter play into it, if at all? Is there a solution in the anomaly that is the accelerating expansion of the universe?  What lies beyond 14 billion light years away?
> 
> White dwarfs I bet last a very, very long time.  Still, it makes me sad.  Something we're taught since childhood that the universe is infinite.  That may be, but what use is an infinite universe that is dark and almost completely devoid of life.  It's a depressing thought.



Strictly speaking the universe is infinite: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

Though we haven't 'known' that for long.


----------



## a_ump (Aug 11, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Space is actually more accessible than the deepest parts of the oceans.  That is to say, a vacuum is easier to explore than an extreme pressure environment.


 
Technically very true, but when i think about the funding that goes into it, the failed efforts, i'd feel those empty efforts/funding could be put to so much better use to benefit us here on earth. Its a bit like a 4x space game like gal civ 3. i don't put 20% of my income to exploring when i'm limited to my starting planet, i make sure its supplied and good to go to start my fleet, manufacturing, etc.


----------



## Caring1 (Aug 11, 2015)

Science isn't even certain the universe started with a big bang, that is only one of the theories.
It may only be one of many major events that we can measure in our visible part of the universe.


----------



## silkstone (Aug 11, 2015)

Caring1 said:


> Science isn't even certain the universe started with a big bang, that is only one of the theories.



So many things wrong with this sentence


----------



## Caring1 (Aug 11, 2015)

silkstone said:


> So many things wrong with this sentence


You have a problem with fact?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 11, 2015)

ShiBDiB said:


> Fuck off..
> 
> We still know a fraction of a percent of the information necessary to even pretend to make a statement regarding the life cycle of the universe.


The real question is it going to rain tomorrow where I live? Until they answer that with 100% accuracy Ill hold off on believing their "Death of a Cosmos" theory


----------



## silkstone (Aug 11, 2015)

Caring1 said:


> You have a problem with fact?



Sorry, not a personal attack or flame. It's a common source of  for me and it's a shame that more people outside of the science community don't understand science.

Search for "What is a scientific theory"

and

"Certainty in science"

In that order. And I would highly encourage anyone else who doesn't understand my frustration to do the same.



TheMailMan78 said:


> The real question is it going to rain tomorrow where I live? Until they answer that with 100% accuracy Ill hold off on believing their "Death of a Cosmos" theory



Until you disprove (or prove with a reasonable degree of accuracy) solipsism is real, that will never happen.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 11, 2015)

TheMailMan78 said:


> The real question is it going to rain tomorrow where I live? Until they answer that with 100% accuracy Ill hold off on believing their "Death of a Cosmos" theory


http://www.weather.gov -- enter your ZIP code and find out.  NOAA is pretty accurate at predicting short-term forecasts.


----------



## silkstone (Aug 11, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> http://www.weather.gov -- enter your ZIP code and find out.  NOAA is pretty accurate at predicting short-term forecasts.



I don't think you understood his 'joke'

Edit - if it was a joke. You never know with TMM. Sorry.

Science is kinda opposite to the legal system. You can only ever disprove a hypothesis. = (possibly) true until disproven rather than innocent until proven guilty.

An analogy, you go into the the grocery store and pick up and apple before putting it back. Some of the cells were (probably) transferred to your body and you walked out of the shop. You go home and have a shower and the police come round and accuse you of theft. Now you have to prove that no did not take any of that apple with you.

A completely ridiculous analogy, but a lot like astrophysics. So when people talk about theories, there are 'theories' and theories.


----------



## Caring1 (Aug 11, 2015)

I'm not going to bother looking up either, nothing personal.
It seems that for something to be a certainty, the majority have to agree and reach consensus, much like when the Earth was thought to be flat.
There is still no definitive proof.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 11, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> http://www.weather.gov -- enter your ZIP code and find out.  NOAA is pretty accurate at predicting short-term forecasts.


Actually they don't. I lived in a Hurricane zone my entire life. They have no clue what is going on until it hits land. Even then its a guess what will happen next. NOAA had almost 100% chance of rain last Sunday for my area. Not a single drop fell. Most of Science for the study of space is all BS to get grants.


----------



## silkstone (Aug 11, 2015)

Caring1 said:


> I'm not going to bother looking up either, nothing personal.
> It seems that for something to be a certainty, the majority have to agree and reach consensus, much like when the Earth was thought to be flat.
> There is still no definitive proof.



That's the whole point. There is no certainty. Certainty is a fallacy. 



TheMailMan78 said:


> Actually they don't. I lived in a Hurricane zone my entire life. They have no clue what is going on until it hits land. Even then its a guess what will happen next. NOAA had almost 100% chance of rain last Sunday for my area. Not a single drop fell. Most of Science for the study of space is all BS to get grants.



That's a pretty cynical way to go through life


----------



## Sasqui (Aug 11, 2015)

When is Al Gore going to make a movie about this?


----------



## silkstone (Aug 11, 2015)

Sasqui said:


> When is Al Gore going to make a movie about this?


This thread is going to get derailed very quickly if we go there!

To go into greater detail about theory and certainty.

Theory = generally accepted truth. Usually for any given scientific 'topic' there is only one theory. Others are disproved. In Astrophysics (big-bang) this is a little more complicated as it's pretty much impossible to disprove anything that is mathematically sound. So there are mainstream theories which have a solid mathematical foundation and other 'fluff' which might later turn into widely accepted theories (i'm greatly over-simplifying much of this)
Basically, if it's a theory, then to the best of out knowledge it is true.
(aside - Though we can never know what is truth as our perception of the universe is socially constructed and so can only interpret it through our experiences and senses)

In science, the level of accuracy gives us a good idea of how certain we are as a 'society' that the 'theory is correct' we can never be 100% certain in anything, it's a philosophical and scientific impossibility and goes against so many scientific laws (I'm thinking entropy/thermodynamics) that I have long forgotten  Hell, when the LHC was fired up, they were only 90% certain that it wouldn't cause end of the world!

for the life of me, i can't find the quote about 90% certainty. I think because people it would freak people out if they misunderstood there was a 1/10 chance that a black-hole could be created and swallow up our planet. Instead scientists talk about degrees of accuracy, which largely depend on their measurement instruments. Added to the mix that some theories cannot be mathematically disproved, you have the right mix for a lot of misinterpretation. I'm by no means an expert in the field, but I understand the extent of my knowledge in the subject.

Here's a link to Cern along with the safety issues. When you bear in mind that there are so many probabilities adding up (in anything and everything) 90% is as close to certainty as you are going to get.

http://press.web.cern.ch/backgrounders/safety-lhc

Edit: More academic reading - https://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/613175/files/CERN-2003-001.pdf
Notice the use of the word negligible and theory.

[Edit] - Grammar, extra thoughts 'n' stuff

[Edit 2]



Caring1 said:


> You have a problem with fact?



Yes. There is no such thing. Give me an example of a fact and (to the best of my ability) I will try to disprove it.


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 11, 2015)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Actually they don't. I lived in a Hurricane zone my entire life. They have no clue what is going on until it hits land. Even then its a guess what will happen next. NOAA had almost 100% chance of rain last Sunday for my area. Not a single drop fell. Most of Science for the study of space is all BS to get grants.


I think you misunderstand what percent chance of precipitation means. It's not the odds that it's going to rain, it's the occurrence of precipitation given the same historical conditions.

So for example, when they say, "There is an 80% chance of rain," they're really saying, "80% of the time in the past with similar weather conditions, it rained." It's just data derived from observational statistics, it doesn't describe certainty, that is what projections are for.


----------



## Zero3606 (Aug 11, 2015)

silkstone said:


> Sorry, not a personal attack or flame. It's a common source of  for me and it's a shame that more people outside of the science community don't understand science.
> 
> Search for "What is a scientific theory"
> 
> ...



How can you prove "Certainty in science" in regard to space. We find things on earth everyday that question science and what we thought was right. Space is infinite and it contains billions objects that haven't been seen of or recorded. Everything in space isn't able to be reached and we are using prototype instruments that measure what we think to look for not what is actually out there. So that's the problem I have with this science and space stuff


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 11, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> I think you misunderstand what percent chance of precipitation means. It's not the odds that it's going to rain, it's the occurrence of precipitation given the same historical conditions.
> 
> So for example, when they say, "There is an 80% chance of rain," they're really saying, "80% of the time in the past with similar weather conditions, it rained." It's just data derived from observational statistics, it doesn't describe certainty, that is what projections are for.


So 100% chance of precipitation doesn't mean its going to rain? Am I reading that correctly?

Also in 1992 I went to bed because NOAA said hurricane Andrew was going to hit the Broward/Dade County line. About 1am I woke up in the dead middle of a category 5 hurricane. They couldn't even tell me were a F#$KING hurricane was going to be within three hours? Science is pretty sure the cosmos is dying? We walked on the moon less than 50 years ago. We just got photos of Pluto and discovered things about its atmosphere we didn't know. Yet they know when the cosmos is dying? Come on man. Lets at least TRY and be realistic here.

I love Science. Science we can realistically test and practice. Space? Yeah Ill pass on most theories until we actually send a man out of our preverbal front door. Ya know actually leave our solar system? Right now its like trying to figure out what the neighbors were cooking 50 years ago by the type of light coming through their kitchen window today.


----------



## DLGenesis (Aug 11, 2015)

Half-Life confirmed


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 11, 2015)

TheMailMan78 said:


> They couldn't even tell me were a F#$KING hurricane was going to be within three hours?


You mad, bro? Neither could you but, I'm a little confused by how can you be 3 hours away from a category 5 storm and not know it's coming. Either way, I'm sorry your experience sucked but I've personally haven't witnessed that. Maybe the NOAA stations in the northeast suck less than the ones down south? Don't you live in Florida? Isn't storms coming out of nowhere normal for more southern parts of the state during certain times of year, south of the pan handle and out on the peninsula?

I was only commenting on your weather statement though. I too think this study is a bit foobar.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 11, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> You mad, bro? Neither could you but, I'm a little confused by how can you be 3 hours away from a category 5 storm and not know it's coming. Either way, I'm sorry your experience sucked but I've personally haven't witnessed that. Maybe the NOAA stations in the northeast suck less than the ones down south? Don't you live in Florida? Isn't storms coming out of nowhere normal for more southern parts of the state during certain times of year, south of the pan handle and out on the peninsula?
> 
> I was only commenting on your weather statement though. I too think this study is a bit foobar.


No I aint mad. We knew Andrew was coming. We knew it was going to hit. However NOAA said it was going to hit almost 80 miles north of where I was (Homestead). Within three or four hours it was right on top of us. Also the main NOAA building is located in South Miami. The NOAA National Hurricane Center was literally 15 minutes from my house and they dropped the ball. Like I said......until they can predict the weather or even a accurate pattern Ill hold off on the "Doomsday" 2 billion years from now. lol


----------



## HammerON (Aug 11, 2015)

Let us stay on the topic at hand please and not derail this thread.


----------



## Bansaku (Aug 11, 2015)

ShiBDiB said:


> Fuck off..
> 
> We still know a fraction of a percent of the information necessary to even pretend to make a statement regarding the life cycle of the universe.



First the universe was collapsing on itself, then it's expanding, now it's dying?
The Earth is a sphere. Then it's oblate! Now it's...pear shaped?

Yup, we humans know NOTHING! We base all science on math nowadays instead of experiments and observation.


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 11, 2015)

I bitched a long time ago about this sub forum.

What @silkstone says is true.  Science is based on observation and theory is based on testing such observation.  When a theory is made that cannot be tested it isn't a certainty.  However, scientific theory is a condition where a theory has not been disproved and has been supported by validation of a large number of peers.  This is not solid, concrete proof but is _almost_ a certainty.  We built atomic weaponry and nuclear power plants based on theories based on 'near certainty'.  Nobody could see the fission of nuclei but  the theory was so sound we went ahead with it. 

What we get on this 'science' forum though are people without an understanding of the validity of scientific theory.  The opinion that we all assumed the earth was flat was because way back then we knew nothing.  There was no science - it was philosophy, religion and basic mathematics.  Science requires leaps and bounds in technology.  The earth was flat because it looked flat and fitted with the interpretations of many religious texts (mainly through the egocentric view of man).

What we say is science now is easily broken into established theory (nuclear, evolution, tectonic, geologic etc) and plain theory (big bang, black holes, why toast falls butter side down).  It's usually those with spiritual needs that like to debunk science the most but that's a defence mechanism which ironically from an evolutionary (at least psychologically speaking) point is understandable.

As for weather patterns?  Any meteorologist will happily tell you a regional forecast is nothing but a forecast - a prediction based on stats.  As for the 100% chance of rain. - Yes, in an area some 'x' miles across there will be rain.  Just because your area didn't get it, doesn't mean another area in that section didn't.  That's how it works.  

And the universe dying thing - it's not a theory but a hypothesis based on some observations.  It's not a theory until it's validated pretty much unanimously by the peer group, through repeated and valid observation.


----------



## Pill Monster (Aug 11, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Exactly, which begs the question of whether or not there is a mechanism to rejuvenate the universe.  Do big bangs recur?  How does dark matter play into it, if at all? Is there a solution in the anomaly that is the accelerating expansion of the universe?  What lies beyond 14 billion light years away?


  Great thread, this is one my closest hobbies   The universe theory is out, apparently now the cool kids are saying"multiverse" (still theory ofc) but if to be believed this universe we live in is one of many started by infinitely?? recurring bigbangs each creating it's own universe with it's own random laws of physics.    They can't see past 14 billion years atm with Hubble because at that time space was still very hot and therefore opaque, so there is a big opaque wall around 14B years away. NASA are sending up (or may have already) infrared  telescopes which will see past the Hubble's UDF.

Afa the expansion goes atm there isn't enough gravitational mass in the universe to hold it together, so at present our universe will eventually tear itself apart due Dark Energy, the Galaxies will separate, stars will die, and it'll be just one big empty cold place.  No idea how the bigbangs can  reoccur from that  apparently it's something to do with Quantum Mechanics which is another whole can of worms because to find the "Theory of Everything" ie how we got here, Quantum Mechanics needs to be fused with Laws of Physics, and noone has found a way to do it yet.

Dark Energy is what the scientists measure but can't see, same with Dark Matter. DM isn't seen directly but the effects a have been through planetary orbit shifts and ofc Gravitational Lensing. So possibly a new element.


fwiw NJL (NASA) are working on a feasibility study to find away to travel FTL, by actually moving space itself, not through it. It's called....Warp Drive believe it or not. 



I know how you feel about being depressed, what screws me up is when u think about the size of just the observable Universe, we really are fucked because we can't even get to the next planet, let alone the next star. 
Have you eevr read the Fermi Paradox?  It's the paradox of why we haven't found life or nobody else has found us with all the billions of stars out thee....that's what really depresses me.....


Fermi Paradox




Also if you haven't seen this one it's pretty interesting. Puts things into perspective. Laurence Krause A Universe from Nothing. The nothing part is theory, but there's heaps of really interesting scientific stuff about DM, DE and what they know.












Fun fact.: If our solar system was the size of a dime, the milky way would be the size of the United States. That's one galaxy. lol





Caring1 said:


> White dwarfs I bet last a very, very long time.  Still, it makes me sad.  Something we're taught since childhood that the universe is infinite.  That may be, but what use is an infinite universe that is dark and almost completely devoid of life.  It's a depressing thought.


 Fermi Paradox




Caring1 said:


> Science isn't even certain the universe started with a big bang, that is only one of the theories.
> It may only be one of many major events that we can measure in our visible part of the universe.


I think they are, but they don't know what caused it.... I mean everything they';ve theorised has been proven scientifically so far....Microwave Background Radiation was meant to be proof of the BB.



Caring1 said:


> I'm not going to bother looking up either, nothing personal.
> It seems that for something to be a certainty, the majority have to agree and reach consensus, much like when the Earth was thought to be flat.
> There is still no definitive proof.


----------



## MIRTAZAPINE (Aug 11, 2015)

@the54thvoid  & @silkstone

You two give me hope that there are people that have a basic understanding of science in a world where scientific literacy is taking a huge plunge. Pseudoscience and evangelical religious preaching is on a huge rise.

It really really get me angry when people misuse and misunderstood the word "theory" and mistake it to mean just an idea in layman language. A scientific theory is not just a hypothesis but it is a hypothesis that is supported by evidence and can reproduce or tested by anyone. Like the theory of gravity and germ theory. You would not be going around and say it just a theory. I often time I felt like joking and saying something like "you know I jump off buildings because gravity is just a theory(sarcasm)".

Contrary to religious nuts that are anti-science, there is no such thing as prove scientifically as like you said science does not deal with certainty. Rational wiki have a good explanation on "scientific prove". http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Proof

It is the human nature not to be able to grasp science as we all have our own biases.


----------



## Pill Monster (Aug 11, 2015)

MIRTAZAPINE said:


> @the54thvoid  & @silkstone
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do you know what the large Hadron Collider is? 

btw I hope you're not referring to me as as the religious nut, as that would make you a bigot.  I am certainly not religious.


----------



## Pill Monster (Aug 11, 2015)

Ironic thing is I was raised Catholic, but the more I learned about the universe and how alone we are, the less I believed in religion......


----------



## MIRTAZAPINE (Aug 11, 2015)

Pill Monster said:


> Do you know what the large Hadron Collider is?
> 
> btw I hope you're not referring to me as as the religious nut, as that would make you a bigot.  I am certainly not religious.



Haha No I am not referring to you at all! In fact I agree with what you said. I glad to hear that this is part of your hobby.

When I mean religious nut, I am referring to those religious supporting geocentrism the believe where the Earth is the centre and the sun and other planet revolve around us. They cite how God made the world for us. They believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Also those religious people that don't believe in evolution when there are countless of fossil records and it form a huge basis of our modern medicine. Those are the obvious one.


----------



## MIRTAZAPINE (Aug 11, 2015)

Pill Monster said:


> Ironic thing is I was raised Catholic, but the more I learned about the universe and how alone we are, the less I believed in religion......



I was raise very religious as we'll not a day pass where I never offer my prayer and believing in The Lord. But as of now I have deconverted and belief my just broke apart. It is a huge turmoil for me. Sadly I have to keep this a secret as my parents and whole family is religious and I would face huge repercussion being honest. I'll put that aside is hard to live a normal life.

I am alright with people having faith just as long as they don't harm people and destroy the advancement of sciences. Having faith gives people comfort in living in this harsh world.


----------



## Pill Monster (Aug 11, 2015)

Lov the username btw. Mirtazapine..    I actually met with your friend Temazipam last  night., just before bed.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Aug 11, 2015)

Bansaku said:


> First the universe was collapsing on itself, then it's expanding, now it's dying?
> The Earth is a sphere. Then it's oblate! Now it's...pear shaped?
> 
> Yup, we humans know NOTHING! We base all science on math nowadays instead of experiments and observation.



Stupid, stupid reply.

The collapsing universe theory (one of many potential theories for how the universe as it currently exists might end) is still valid.  It's immensely unlikely, given our understanding, because for it to occur there would have to exist particles and matter with some very improbable physical characteristics.

The expanding universe theory is our observed truth.  Perhaps a bit more research into the topic is warranted, given you are equating ending scenarios with observable truth.  The simple truth of the matter is that we can "see back" into time by looking at different parts of the universe.  These different parts of the universe actually have a spectral emissions shift based upon traveling at some speed relative to us (red shift and violet shift respectively).  We know there is a spectral shift because we know what frequencies matter emits once excited.  If everything is moving relative to us, we can trace back a rough common starting point.  If all observable bodies have roughly the same starting point (accounting for imprecise observation and immense stretches of time and distance), then we must all be expanding outward.  Our observations match this conjecture, so the expanding universe theory is an observable and demonstrably valid hypothesis. 

The universe dying is, quite possibly, the least interesting part of this whole discussion.  It being a revelation to you is...wow.  Perhaps you can ask your parents; and yes I know how condescending that sounds.  Everything which requires energy dies.  If that were not the case you'd only have to buy one hand warmer pack for your entire life.  Those hand warmers use two chemicals in an exothermic reaction to produce heat.  The result is a new chemical with much less potential energy, and waste heat which is dissipated into the environment.  As that waste heat can go anywhere, it's functionally lost.  The chemicals, assuming a reverse reaction can even be stimulated, actually require more input energy than released to warm your hands.  Nuclear reactions, the sun in case you missed it, are the same.  Hydrogen fuses to Helium, fuses to Lithium, to Beryllium, to Boron, etc...  When the Hydrogen is gone, you can't make more Helium.  When the Helium is gone you can't make more Lithium.  Eventually, the mass of elements (a rough analog to electro-magnetic forces) will exceed gravity's ability to generate forces capable of nuclear fusion.  When that happens the universe dies.  No new energy, so no life.  The only way that isn't the case is if the universe is somehow receiving energy from something that we don't yet understand.  Unless and until that can be proven, assuming that everything dies eventually is one of the least stupid things that you can do.



Your lack of geophysical knowledge is astounding.  

Just in case you missed it, different materials have different densities.  If you were to place a cannonball (iron) in water it sinks, while the same cannonball in mercury floats.  Why do I begin here; the Earth is composed of nearly 100 elements.  These elements have different relative solubility, and substantially differing density.  Gravitational forces, likewise, demonstrate this difference.  The Earth has a thin outer shell of low density gasses.  As you move down, you first encounter low density minerals (silicates and the like), along with water.  Moving further down, heavier elements become more common.  Finally, you get to the core of the planet.  Nickel, Iridium, and Iron are densely packed there.  The Iridium is immensely dense, the Iron is easily soluble in it, and the Nickel came along for the ride with Iron.  

The reason that these elements are at the core is simple, as any school child can demonstrate on the play ground.  A child standing in the center of a merry-go-round doesn't have to hold onto the bars very tightly.  A significantly lighter child could hold stand half way between the center and outside and apply the same holding force to remain on the device.  Finally, a child significantly lighter than either of the two aforementioned children could stand on the outside edge with the same holding force.  If the inside child was to move to the edge they'd be thrown from the merry-go-round immediately.  As gravitational potential energy is a relative constant, as with the applied holding force, you wind up with the densest materials at the center of the earth, and the lightest ones on the outside.

The oblate spheroid section of this discussion is down to simple physics, and it's the same reason we launch rockets near the equator rather than at the poles.  The distance from the rotational pole (not the geomagnetic one) relates directly to your rotational velocity.  Earth spins, so you have to be spinning too if you're standing on it.  As the spin generates centripetal energy, the farther from the pole the more force is acting upon you.  Thus, the earth must be slightly oblate.  Even if the Earth had no relative rotation (and thus no rotational axis), plate tectonics and the fact that elements aren't homogeneously distributed throughout it would prevent it from being a sphere.






As far as basing science on math, get the heck out of here.  Stupid doesn't even cover that kind of idiocy.

Chemists and metallurgists develop new alloys all the time.  Those people are both scientist and engineers, utilizing observation and testing to prove out their theory.

Aerospace and automotive engineers develop plenty of things on the computer (using fluid dynamic equations), but when it comes time to choose a final design they proceed to the wind tunnel for actual testing.  A computer model is worth a thousand words, but physical testing makes the text books which those words are derived from.

NASA just got information back from a Pluto fly-by.  Theories about Pluto died, were confirmed, and a thousand more conjectures were born that day.  Once the scientist comb through that data we may have more theories to test whenever next we get to observe that celestial dwarf.  

To admit ignorance is expected, and does not influence your credibility.  To bandy about ignorance as fact is cause to loose any respect you've ever developed.  Which do you choose?   More importantly, trolling or ignorance?


----------



## Laughing_Beast (Aug 11, 2015)

Bansaku said:


> We base all science on math nowadays instead of experiments and observation.



You know,I heard somewhere that scientists OBSERVED over 200,000 galaxies and found out some interesting stuff.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Aug 11, 2015)

welp, pack it in guys. you can give me all your rigs and i will take care of them for you while you prepare your bunkers.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 11, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> NASA just got information back from a Pluto fly-by.  Theories about Pluto died, were confirmed, and a thousand more conjectures were born that day.  Once the scientist comb through that data we may have more theories to test whenever next we get to observe that celestial dwarf.


 You just proved my point. Pluto is right "next" to us and they had theories destroyed and new ones made within hours. Yet you want me to accept a theory based off of observation of billions of years old light, passing probably a billion stars and unknown gravity forces we can predict "Doomsday" with ANY kind of accuracy? Hell just a few years ago they discovered radiation decay isn't even constant!
http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2010/100830FischbachJenkinsDec.html

Dude that's our sun........our tiny little sun right next door and we don't know WTF its doing half the time.

I think you know I love Science and Sciences Oompa Loompas (Engineers) but, to me quantum physics, mechanics is the new religion. There is a lot of "faith" in the theories I find hard to swallow.


----------



## silkstone (Aug 11, 2015)

As an aside. 

Interestingly enough, that we thought the earth is flat is a misnomer. we might have thought that as cavemen, but since recorded history, pretty much every civilization has known the earth to be spherical.


----------



## Laughing_Beast (Aug 11, 2015)

TheMailMan78 said:


> ...to me quantum physics, mechanics is the new religion. There is a lot of "faith" in the theories I find hard to swallow.



Can I have your rig,if it's existence it's so hard to swallow to you?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 12, 2015)

silkstone said:


> As an aside.
> 
> Interestingly enough, that we thought the earth is flat is a misnomer. we might have thought that as cavemen, but since recorded history, pretty much every civilization has known the earth to be spherical.


100% this. That's something I learned here on TPU during an obscure debate like this! Its kind of like one of those things they teach in grade school but, its just a myth. Like fat girls with high self esteem.



Laughing_Beast said:


> Can I have your rig,if it's existence it's so hard to swallow to you?


Why would you want my dated ass rig?


----------



## silkstone (Aug 12, 2015)

QM is pretty much the opposite of faith. Although, I can understand why people might think that. (I only went into the basics of QM at uni and skipped things like string theory for fear of my head exploding)

Until we can observe it, it isn't 'true' (at least in the scientific community). That's why the Higgs Boson was a big deal.
I think LB might be referring to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, fundamental to much of QM and shown to be 'true' through observations such as quantum tunneling which we can 'see' happening in things like cpus and gpus.

If you're interested in QM, one of the easiest (and most fun) places to start is wave-particle duality. I introduce the concept to students in about G10 and it's always entertaining to see the wonder created with a little understanding of how the universe actually works.
Another topic is basic understanding of extra-dimensions. There are lots of analogies out there of people living in a 2D universe trying to comprehend the 3rd dimension. Not the most accurate analogy IMO, but interesting nevertheless.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 12, 2015)

Laughing_Beast said:


> Can I have your rig,if it's existence it's so hard to swallow to you?





silkstone said:


> QM is pretty much the opposite of faith.
> 
> Until we can observe it, it isn't 'true' (at least in the scientific community). That's why the Higgs Boson was a big deal.
> I think LB might be refering to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, fundemental to much of QM and shown to be 'true' through observations such as quantum tunneling which we can 'see' happening in things like cpus and gpus


Ahhh ok. I see what you're saying. Kinda like quantum jump was a "theory" until about 30 years ago when they actually saw it happen in mercury?

When I talk about the "black magic" of quantum theory I am talking about the interdimensional junk.


----------



## silkstone (Aug 12, 2015)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Ahhh ok. I see what you're saying. Kinda like quantum jump was a "theory" until about 30 years ago when they actually saw it happen in mercury?
> 
> When I talk about the "black magic" of quantum theory I am talking about the interdimensional junk.



Yeah. We can't observe it, only theorize about it. Multiple dimensions is, i believe, one way to explain what is happening in our observable universe. But, as we can't percieve them, we don't know.
It's a little unfair to call it junk though, unless you can come up with (or believe in) an alternate theory to explain what we can see happening in our universe.

You never know what will happen in the future though. The optimist in me hopes we will develop some way to test and observe these theories. After all, the only limit to understanding is the imagination. (Trying to quote Einstein, but badly).


----------



## BiggieShady (Aug 12, 2015)

Bansaku said:


> The Earth is a sphere. Then it's oblate! Now it's...pear shaped?


LOL, I don't know what pears look like in your part of the world


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Aug 12, 2015)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You just proved my point. Pluto is right "next" to us and they had theories destroyed and new ones made within hours. Yet you want me to accept a theory based off of observation of billions of years old light, passing probably a billion stars and unknown gravity forces we can predict "Doomsday" with ANY kind of accuracy? Hell just a few years ago they discovered radiation decay isn't even constant!
> http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2010/100830FischbachJenkinsDec.html
> 
> Dude that's our sun........our tiny little sun right next door and we don't know WTF its doing half the time.
> ...



Idiot proof terminology.

You have a car.  You drive said car, with a sealed tank of gas.  There is therefore a finite amount of gas, even if the tank was the size of Earth.  At some point in time, you look at the the indicator.  On the indicator, you see the tank is at 75% full.  The mileage indicator indicates that you have drive 10,000 miles. 

From this, you can logically extrapolate that if you continue to drive as such the tank will run out of fuel at 40,000 miles.



You've made several assumptions along the way.  Let's tick them off:
1) The car had a 100% full tank when it was made.
2) The indicators aren't lying to you.
3) 0% full on the tank is actually empty, and not some critical level which will allow you to continue driving.
4) The fuel will magically never go bad.


Idiot 1 argues that because you don't have full information you can't draw any actionable information.  Idiot two suggests you cut open the fuel tank, and figure out what is going on.  Idiot 3 says the car is magical, and doesn't agree with our known universe, and thus must be burnt as a heretic. 
Intelligent person 1 says that they assume the tank will run out near 40,000 miles.  They realize that they've driven 10,000 miles in 40 years, so this is not a problem for them.  They utilize said information and write a note for the next owner.  This note expands the available information to the next owner, who discovers that the tank in fact ran out at 41,090 miles.  The original owner has used the car without worry, despite their assumptions not being 100% accurate.  They were able to parlay that bit of information into something useful, while the idiots were paralyzed arguing over semantics.





Relating that back to our discussion.  The useful bit is that science is measuring radiative energy output, and they've either developed the tools to better measure it or have found new models to apply to existing data.  Either way, breakthroughs like that could do things like make atomic clocks smaller, cheaper, and more accurate.  While scientific research is arguing over a bit of information beyond anything we'll ever observe, the actual benefit to this sort of thing isn't theoretical wrangling, but actual practical application.  You saying that you're not listening to their conclusions until they meet your arbitrary qualifiers is lunacy.

Perhaps, for just a moment, you can follow me through a little exercise.  Let's say that you've got an area 2 miles by 80 miles by 1 mile.  Let's say that the average density of air particles in said area is 1.14 kg/M^3.  That means you've got 7.60*10^11 kg of air in said area.  Let's assume that air is Nitrogen, because most of it is (70%+).  The amount of moles of nitrogen in 1 kg is 71.39.  With Avogardo's number, we're looking at (7.60*10^11)kg * (71.39) mol/kg * (6.022*10^23) atoms/mol.  In case you missed that whopping figure, you're looking at 3.267*10^37 atoms to model.  Let's only say that humidity, temperature, and air velocity influence a storm.  These influences are magically only additive, and only offer one order of magnitude greater complexity in calculation.  That means you've got to model 3.267*10^37 atoms a total of 10^3 times.  The interaction of each atom is only modeled with 6 other atoms (top, bottom, right, left, front, back).  This means  you've got 1.9604*10^41 different dynamic calculations for each time interval that you want to model.  Let's say that the model only calculates a per minute change, over the course of 10 hours.  1.1763*10^45 calculations.

I freaking dare you to perform that many calculations.  A whole farm of computers might render that many calculations, but even then you've got a very simple and basic model of the interaction.  To actually map the relative change in humidity, temperature, and air flow you'd have to put forward a much more robust calculation.  Let's only ballpark it at increasing the complexity by a factor of 100,000.  1.1763*1-^50 calculations to actually map out a storm.  You'd need to monitor every single atom within the environment, because if you're off on any one interaction there'd be a ripple of error through the entire calculation matrix.

Perhaps you could provide a computer that'd do this.  It'd make brute force cracking absolutely simple, and you'd be able to accurately map the weather everywhere.

Just because we have the method to calculate something, doesn't mean we have the means to do it.  100 years ago we had refined silicon, but not microprocessors.  50 years ago we had cipher equations, but the enigma machine wasn't easily beaten.  10 years ago we had all of the technology to clone, yet it still takes multiple attempts to clone something as relatively simple as a mammal.  Throwing your hands into the air is arrogance, idiocy, and proves only that you lack any worthwhile opinion.  If you've got something to say, bring it to the table.  Sticking ones' fingers in their ears isn't something defensible.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 12, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Idiot proof terminology.
> 
> You have a car.  You drive said car, with a sealed tank of gas.  There is therefore a finite amount of gas, even if the tank was the size of Earth.  At some point in time, you look at the the indicator.  On the indicator, you see the tank is at 75% full.  The mileage indicator indicates that you have drive 10,000 miles.
> 
> ...


Again you proved my point. Your exercise is exactly why I have a hard time accepting any theory about the lifespan of the cosmos. There are WAY to many variables that cannot even be observed/tested to begin to "assume" anything.

I don't take away there are no good theories but, I don't think leaving our solar system is the request of a lunatic looking for absolute proof. To repeat what I said "We are trying to figure out what the neighbors cooked for dinner 50 years ago by the light in the window today". That's what people are asked to swallow. I use the weather analogy for most people on TPU to grasp (not that I'm a genius or anything) but, you know as well as I do weather calculations/models are tinker toys to the variables of space. Tell me when its going to rain and Ill start to listen to the future of the cosmos.

In the meantime Ill enjoy all the loose theories based off of observing light that's billions of years old traveling billions of miles through a billion different gravitational fields. Basicly Ill agree to disagree with you......with respect.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Aug 12, 2015)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Again you proved my point. Your exercise is exactly why I have a hard time accepting any theory about the lifespan of the cosmos. There are WAY to many variables that cannot even be observed/tested to begin to "assume" anything.
> 
> I don't take away there are no good theories but, I don't think leaving our solar system is the request of a lunatic looking for absolute proof. To repeat what I said "We are trying to figure out what the neighbors cooked for dinner 50 years ago by the light in the window today". That's what people are asked to swallow. I use the weather analogy for most people on TPU to grasp (not that I'm a genius or anything) but, you know as well as I do weather calculations/models are tinker toys to the variables of space. Tell me when its going to rain and Ill start to listen to the future of the cosmos.
> 
> In the meantime Ill enjoy all the loose theories based off of observing light that's billions of years old traveling billions of miles through a billion different gravitational fields. Basicly Ill agree to disagree with you......with respect.



What?

Can you please help me understand your point?  I think somewhere along the line you picked an apple, I wound up with an orange, but we both missed the fact we were supposed to be talking about a watermelon.

The article says that we have observed that the universe is outputting less radiant energy than it was before.  Headline making claim is that "'The Universe is slowly dying,' *study shows with unprecedented precision*."  The entire point of the article was that the measurement of radiative energy was accurate beyond anything we've previously been able to quantify.  The thrust of this is that the GAMA project (http://www.gama-survey.org/ which was also linked to in the original article) is doing some kick-ass science. Our author makes a rather substantial statement, yet nothing linked to in the article supports it.  Me thinks that shitty journalism might again be to blame for this...



From there we've pinwheeled into "the universe is dying," and "I don't believe so."  To be fair, science is a process of theory, trial, and continuing trial.  It isn't magic, and thus isn't right from the start 100% of the time.  From there we've somehow gotten to the erroneous conclusion that because x isn't right, the entire rest of the alphabet should be in doubt.  Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit.  It's all I have left in my toolbox.  Either you need to follow the scientific process, or you need to not call what you are doing science.  Propose a counter-conjecture to what we have.  Develop a method to test the theory, and place the existing theory against your own conjectures.  The testing you did will either prove your point and prove that the old theory is invalid, or you'll prove that your conjecture isn't valid.  Once you've proven your validity, your conjecture becomes a theory, up to the day it proves inadequate or incorrect.  The scientific method is a cruel and heartless bitch, but she deals justice fairly.

Do you believe the theory of heat death, the big crunch, or something else?  Doesn't matter, that's not the point of this article.  I don't want to argue these points, because their only support is mathematics and not our direct observations.  While math never lies, it's easy to model a banana and call it a pear.  What it confirms is that we've got a universe that is decreasing in radiative energy as time passes.  By nature, this supports the conclusion that at some point we'll have a universe that runs out of radiative energy.  The date doesn't matter.  The purpose of life is inconsequential.  The science being done is measuring radiative energy with unprecedented accuracy.  To throw away the science because it's uncomfortable or difficult is to retard the growth of humanity.




-Separate point, only mildly related to our discussion-

I'll make a bargain with anyone out there who's against this type of research.  The Bible, Koran, and Torah are a couple of thousand years old (give or take).  You can reject everything modern science has given us, because it is only conjecture and not a divine and absolute truth.  I will happily utilize my modern equipment to build you a place to live.  Once put there though, you only get the truths of your holy book.  That means no sewage, internet, vaccination, selectively bred animals, and the tools you're allowed to use are anything you can forge from bronze and iron.  It's only fair that the lies of humanity are taken away and replaced by the absolute holy truth of your religious text.  On the plus side though, you get to stone the sinners in your community and mete out biblical justice.  I can already feel some religious nuts getting hard over that possibility.

Kinda sounds crappy to me.  Sounds like not having absolute truth has worked out pretty well for humanity.  Seems like progress comes by giving up a little bit of our self importance, admitting when we made erroneous statement, and revising everything as we learn more.  Seems like multiple mathematically proven models aren't theory, but mathematically derived conjectures.  I guess that's why there's a distinction between a mathematician and a scientist.  

String theory is a misnomer.  The math providing its support could be overturned is any one of a dozen testable component theories are wrong.  Holding that up as a punching bag is disingenuous.  Let's be fair, and hold religion and every day items to the same standards.  The Koran is inaccurate, because they say that a flow of salt water and fresh water will not mix.  The bible (and by extension the Torah) is incorrect because they give a history in which dinosaurs never existed.  Science is wrong because our initial model of the solar system was geocentric.  What do you believe then?  Religion is the process of internalizing lies, and defending them against observation.  Science is internalizing the idea that nothing is permanently true and our models of the universe change; facts are only those things which can be observed.  Nihilism is saying that nothing is pure truth, therefore nothing matters.  Existentialism is saying that because everything is true to someone, there is no such thing as a lie.  None of these things offer humanity something of value except science.

To be fair, science is not the new religion.  Religion seeks to define a purpose, for which we are made.  Science rejects purpose, and only concerns itself with function.  Neither is the answer to holistic human experience.  We use the science to understand the beauty of the universe, but our vigilance is required to never stop asking what makes that beauty possible.  Whenever the divine is an answer to a question we've lost the ability to make ourselves better.  Whenever we see the true face of a supreme being there will be reason to thank god.  For now, we only have the ability to remove the veil of ignorance little by little.  As yet, the only supreme thing we've seen is the supremely great length we'll go to in order to make research happen.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Aug 12, 2015)

BiggieShady said:


> LOL, I don't know what pears look like in your part of the world
> View attachment 67288



"Equatorial radius = 6378.16 kilometers. Polar radius = 6356.78 kilometers, so the difference in circumference is 71.1 kilometers. It is not a perfect sphere, but kind of pear-shaped."
-NASA

That's where he probably got that from.


----------



## AsRock (Aug 12, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> http://www.weather.gov -- enter your ZIP code and find out.  NOAA is pretty accurate at predicting short-term forecasts.



Pretty accurate over 24 hours not 2 billion or what ever years lol.  And lets face it we seen nothing yet and been proven wrong so many times how shit works.


----------



## Mindweaver (Aug 12, 2015)

silkstone said:


> As an aside.
> 
> Interestingly enough, that we thought the earth is flat is a misnomer. we might have thought that as cavemen, but since recorded history, pretty much every civilization has known the earth to be spherical.



In a range of 2 Billion years, Australopithecus afarensis wasn't to long ago.


----------



## RCoon (Aug 12, 2015)

50 years ago they said a Star could be no larger than 150 solar masses _as fact_. That was then proved wrong in the last half century.

This is a really awesome book about "facts":

"The Half-life of Facts: Why Everything We Know Has an Expiration Date"

I recommend people read it if they enjoy science as much as I do. Remarkably, after so many years, facts we thought were facts actually become completely wrong within so many years due to scientific growth.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Aug 12, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> As for weather patterns?  Any meteorologist will happily tell you a regional forecast is nothing but a forecast - a prediction based on stats.  As for the 100% chance of rain. - Yes, in an area some 'x' miles across there will be rain.  Just because your area didn't get it, doesn't mean another area in that section didn't.  That's how it works.


 
We just had one of our meteorologists explain what percentages mean.. They are expressed for a region/viewing area, and 100% merely means it is totally certain that somewhere within that region, someone will get rained on at some point that day.  It doesn't mean 100% of the region gets rain.

Meteorologists have a great gig!


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 12, 2015)

RCoon said:


> 50 years ago they said a Star could be no larger than 150 solar masses _as fact_. That was then proved wrong in the last half century.
> 
> This is a really awesome book about "facts":
> 
> ...



Facts are human constructs and only valid to us in a specific time period and often culture.  As overly confident, barely cognisant machines of accidental chemistry, it's quite amusing to even consider we can state a claim to certainty in a universe so vast and timeless that we as part of it are utterly insignificant.  Our greatest achievement is convincing ourselves that we actually matter in the cosmic scale.  We are here and now but not forever.  But that shouldn't stop us trying, it's what makes science so beautiful - to deny our futility by trying to reach omniscience through observation and validation.  To know what we almost can't comprehend and in the end, to know enough to become our own Gods.
Unlike Einstein, I don't believe 'science without religion is lame'.  I believe science without religion is freedom.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 12, 2015)

There are facts in this universe.  An example is the absoluteness of pi.  They are concepts though--not something that exists in the physical universe.


----------



## rooivalk (Aug 12, 2015)




----------



## Laughing_Beast (Aug 12, 2015)

There's also The Restaurant at the End of The Universe :


----------



## silkstone (Aug 13, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> There are facts in this universe.  An example is the absoluteness of pi.  They are concepts though--not something that exists in the physical universe.



You are talking about mathematical truths there, which is a little different. But even so, you can never know the true value of pi. (pi being irrational and all)


----------

