The universe is dying....

[Mazon Del]

Well, unless it is possible to move to another one.

[SomeGuy12]

So, uh, since the universe seems to be on a rapid path to tearing itself apart and losing all energy, how did the universe form in the first place...Why is there something rather than nothing...If there's something now, and there was nothing before, then something can come from nothing. Weird. Nothing we understand about reality makes the slightest bit of sense viewed in that light. Something coming from nothing is paradoxical. "there was always something" is paradoxical. Reality is impossible. If we're real and here now, how did all this come to be? There should have always been nothing. (and no religion doesn't explain anything)

[Camacha]

Well, unless it is possible to move to another one.

That sounds like shifting a problem

So, uh, since the universe seems to be on a rapid path to tearing itself apart and losing all energy, how did the universe form in the first place...Why is there something rather than nothing...If there's something now, and there was nothing before, then something can come from nothing. Weird. Nothing we understand about reality makes the slightest bit of sense viewed in that light. Something coming from nothing is paradoxical. "there was always something" is paradoxical. Reality is impossible. If we're real and here now, how did all this come to be? There should have always been nothing. (and no religion doesn't explain anything)

The fundaments of nature do not seem to make a lot of sense.

[Hagen von Tronje]

Am I mistaken in thinking that the heat death of the universe was commonly accepted theory/fact what, two decades ago? I'm quite certain I understood this to be the most probable fate of the universe in my youth and reading about it in popular science books of the time.

Always seemed fitting to me. With strange eons, even death may die, and it shall do so along a parabolic trajectory.

[kiwi1960]

I really don't want to be that guy... but is this the kind of 'fair use' you're referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Copy-pasting the entirety of the text doesn't seem to be in keeping with the spirit of the definition of fair use.

From the wikipedia article:

And

Seem to contradict your assertions. Can you point to a source that verifies your claims? These things often vary on a country-by-country basis too, so what you are saying might well be true. I find copyright somewhat confusing myself.

Yes, you ARE that guy. The article was written on one site, and copy/pasted to another site, and copy/pasted again, and again.... before I posted it here....

Either you can accept that I took a bit from each site... or did what everyone else did...

The authors of these articles don't really mind if you take the entire article, as long as you give them credit. I am in that category myself. What I didn't do was to provide a link to the site where I got the story from, that is a definite no-no if it was the authors own site... in this case, the original site is listed as SMH .... but no link was provided as far as I remember, the site I got it from was a news site here in New Zealand located at stuff.co.nz ...

I was hoping that my quick explanation would have sorted that out, but as you say, there is one guy, always .... one guy!

[rtxoff]

What? The hypothesis of eternal expansion has evidence behind it, and new evidence of dark energy suggests the expansion is accelerating and rather than stagnation and slow death, all of the Universe's matter will be ripped apart. Your statement is devoid of evidence, don't ignore science out of fear*. Hope for the best, but don't live in denial. I wish the Big Crunch would happen too, but data suggests that gravity isn't strong enough, and who knows if that would cause another Big Bang anyways?

Nope, it's not fear, i won't live anyway that long to witness it. It's just the missing sense in all of this that makes me denying it. The nature of the universe must be a closed cycle because everything else doesn't make much sense. I know that observations speak against it but still they don't explain everything. Dark matter and some other stellar observations are still a mystery to us. Only a fool will claim to know 100% what is going to happen to the universe in the future. Just look at this for an example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor

[NFUN]

Nope, it's not fear, i won't live anyway that long to witness it. It's just the missing sense in all of this that makes me denying it. The nature of the universe must be a closed cycle because everything else doesn't make much sense. I know that observations speak against it but still they don't explain everything. Dark matter and some other stellar observations are still a mystery to us. Only a fool will claim to know 100% what is going to happen to the universe in the future. Just look at this for an example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor

Please explicate.

Also, when reading any statement involving science, you can mentally insert "as far as we know" to the end of it; I don't want to have to do it all of the time. Even those who fervently argue that something is impossible (such as K_2 and lajoswinkler) implicitly understand that they might be incorrect if everything we know is somehow proven wrong. However, just because nobody knows anything in absolute certainty doesn't mean you can dismiss observations by stating that scientists have been wrong before.

[rtxoff]

Please explicate.

Also, when reading any statement involving science, you can mentally insert "as far as we know" to the end of it; I don't want to have to do it all of the time. Even those who fervently argue that something is impossible (such as K_2 and lajoswinkler) implicitly understand that they might be incorrect if everything we know is somehow proven wrong. However, just because nobody knows anything in absolute certainty doesn't mean you can dismiss observations by stating that scientists have been wrong before.

So basically you saying it's "as far as we know" valid for all of us and i have to accept the common opinion about it without being allowed to question it. This does not sound very scientific to me. You are giving here only rhetorical arguments for this case and didn't contribute to answering any of my serious inquiries regarding dark matter and other unexplained phenomenons we observe. IMO only when the picture is complete we might conclude how the fate of the universe might be until then the common hypothesis is only a bedtime story for me. Only because most scientists agree to something doesn't mean i have to agree with them or give up for seeking for other answers.

BTW i never dismissed observations by stating that scientists have been wrong before. It's not very polite nor scientific to accuse people of things they simply didn't do. So get your facts straight next time.

[Aanker]

Guys, it's billions of years into the future. No need to panic. You can still go to the grocery store tomorrow, and the day after that, to buy your favorite flavour of nachos.

[AcidSludge]

Dear Universe,

I never ate Nachos in my life. Please wait a bit with that dying thing until I've had, okay?

With best regards,

AcidSludge

[YNM]

In one way or another, existence must be encountered with de-existance. Stars exist, and they'll 'die'. Planets exists and it can "die". Cells exist and they'll die. We exist and we'll die. While space did have a start, and an end to it would be something unimaginable (for everything have to happen inside it ; else it's nowhere, so non-existent), for sure it'll have a phase where nothing useful is contained inside it, means an end for us.

[ZetaX]

In one way or another, existence must be encountered with de-existance.

How about no¿

[YNM]

How about no¿

A perfectly static condition is impossible isn't it ? Else it's super-fragile...

[SomeGuy12]

But if de-existence follows existence, then existence must have followed de-existence, or it couldn't have existed to be burned out in the first place...uggh.

Anyways, yeah, it's totally possible that our universe is going to die, it's just a temporary bubble, etc. But one popular theory is that something is making a constant stream of fresh universes, we just can't see the new universes cuz they are their own bubbles.

You know, the death of the universe isn't the problem. It's our own personal deaths that are the problem. Universe has trillions of years of usable life left probably - even after the stars stop, you'd be able to pick up their corpses and make them into mini-black holes that provide hawking radiation for power or something.

If you could survive your own personal death - get your brain cryogenically frozen when you die, future people reconstruct you and eventually move it to a computer - you actually could be around a trillion years hence. And if your new brain wasn't dependent purely on squishy cells but used computer chips, it could run like a million or billion times faster. So your perception of time might be 1 million - 1 billion times slower, * the billions or trillions of years the universe has left.

A million times a trillion's a pretty big number. Practically eternity....

[Mazon Del]

But not good enough! After resting on my laurels for a few million years after becoming some form of immortal, I would immediately begin some form of work into investigating the possibility of leaving the universe for a younger and hotter model.

[ZetaX]

A perfectly static condition is impossible isn't it ? Else it's super-fragile...

What has change to do with this. You made a very strong claim about the entirety of existence itself as if it were obvious. I don't even think it is a correct claim, but at the very least you should give evidence or arguments.

[Camacha]

A perfectly static condition is impossible isn't it ? Else it's super-fragile...

If it all were to be (almost) perfectly static, it would most likely be inherently stable. Just like the current resonances and orbits are somewhat self stabilizing - it is pretty much the only reason those orbits are there for us to see. Anything unstable will quickly change.

You could liken it to the laws of evolution. The outcome is a logical result of the circumstances.

[GeneralVeers]

Imagine if we're the only universe to ever be made into the universe. Terrifying, but at least we were the first and only.

We humans already have to deal with this. Someday, you're going to die, and there will never be another "you" again.

I'm guessing you've long since managed to deal with that, and are not letting it ruin your life.

Why should the universe be any different? Why should it be a bummer that there's only going to be one universe, ever? That's better than if there had never been any universe at all.

[vger]

I really don't want to be that guy... but is this the kind of 'fair use' you're referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_useCopy-pasting the entirety of the text doesn't seem to be in keeping with the spirit of the definition of fair use.

In court, the definition of fair use, is whatever the party with the most money wants it to be.

In short, fair use doesn't protect anyone from anything. If a rich corporate super-giant wants to frivolously sue John Doe who only has $50k in his bank account, corporate super-giant is going to win no matter what.

Nope, it's not fear, i won't live anyway that long to witness it.

I still get a twinge of fear from it regardless of knowing I won't be here. For the sake of humanity, it freaks me out some. Even though the odds of us ever escaping the fate of our next major climate shift are slim, and escaping the death of the sun even slimmer, there's something very sobering about knowing that no matter HOW good we are, we ultimately couldn't survive.

[pxi]

In court, the definition of fair use, is whatever the party with the most money wants it to be.

In short, fair use doesn't protect anyone from anything. If a rich corporate super-giant wants to frivolously sue John Doe who only has $50k in his bank account, corporate super-giant is going to win no matter what.

While I don't agree 100% with this, it's still light-years closer to my thinking.

[ZetaX]

In court, the definition of fair use, is whatever the party with the most money wants it to be.

In short, fair use doesn't protect anyone from anything. If a rich corporate super-giant wants to frivolously sue John Doe who only has $50k in his bank account, corporate super-giant is going to win no matter what.

That's why I uttlery despise the US judgmental system: it has none (or only ridiculous) contraints on the possible costs of lawsuits.