Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Only 10-20 Billion Years To Go 89

Posted by timothy from the overdue-books dept.
cinorhc writes "An article at Space Flight Now reports on a study of some Stanford researchers that say the universe will collapse in on itself in a mere 10-20 billion years, resulting in "the Big Crunch". That puts us in the middle of the uni's life cycle. The generally accepted theory as of now is the universe will expand forever, leaving isolated galaxies all alone in a nearly infinite sea of darkness. If these guys are right, we should see galaxies blue shift any day now. I personally prefer a universe that will collapse in on itself and then re-Big Bang so to speak, circle of life on a grand scale."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Only 10-20 Billion Years To Go More

Only 10-20 Billion Years To Go

Comments Filter:

  • If we are around in that time... (Score:3, Funny)

    by jpt.d ( 444929 ) <abfall&rogers,com> on Thursday September 19, 2002 @08:22PM (#4293927)
    I should hope we have the technology to escape any problem that might cause us. Then we can come back in another billion and mess around with the younger races :-)
    • we would end up enslaving them, but we would have to wait billions of years for life to develop. Either that or we could bio-engineer our own race of slave labor and RULE the universe. Reminds me....God I love being American, I can be such an asshole
    • I don't know if the Council of Gallifrey will let us do that though.

  • So does this mean... (Score:4, Funny)

    by SpaceLifeForm ( 228190 ) on Thursday September 19, 2002 @08:35PM (#4294009)
    that eventually all computers will only need 640K of ram?
  • In layman's terms:

    We theorize that the majority of stars become black holes when they collapse. They then start to 'eat' all particulate matter and light energy that comes close to them. They are also exxtremely dense, and have extreme gravitational fields, much like that pinhead of matter had before the universe started. So, as black holes run out of things to absorb, might they start absorbing eachother? Then, they would all become one again. One infinantly dense pinhead which would become unstable due to its' own excessive gravitational field and explode again, to create a new universe.
    • We theorize that the majority of stars become black holes when they collapse. They then start to 'eat' all particulate matter and light energy that comes close to them.

      Actually, the article's talking about something different.

      The idea behind the big bang model is that space itself is expanding, like the surface of a balloon that's being inflated. This drags celestial objects with it, just as spots painted on the balloon's surface will get farther apart as it's inflated.

      Now, inflationary theory said that part of the reason the balloon expanded in the first place was that a powerful form of energy filled space at that time, and caused all parts of it to repel each other, stretching it out from an infinitesimal point to something the size of a baseball. After which it more or less just kept going, with space itself continuing to stretch.

      Gravity acts to pull space back together again; it's a force that constantly tries to slow down and reverse the expansion of the universe. Not just of the objects in the universe - but the expansion of space itself.

      A decade or two ago, it was thought that only the inertia of the expanding universe balanced this. Much measurement went on to see if there was enough matter to cause the universe to collapse. After seeing the effects of dark matter, astronomers figured that there was almost exactly enough matter to keep the universe poised between expansion and collapse forever.

      That all changed recently. As far as we can tell now, the universe is still filled with a remnant of the energy from the inflationary period. It or some similar force continues to push the universe apart, stretching space and speeding up the universe's expansion. This substance is called "dark energy". With dark energy in the model, it looked like the universe would keep on expanding forever, eventually leaving us isolated from other galaxies.

      The article takes a different view. Calculations suggest that the repulsion of dark energy may fade, and possibly even turn into attraction given enough time. Previous estimates said that it would be thousands of times the current age of the universe before this happened. The authors of the article did their own calculations and say that it could be only 20 billion years.

      All sides are hedging their answers, though, as our understanding of the large-scale forces and features of the universe is very tentative and incomplete.
    • One infinitly dense pinhead...


      Hey...
      I think I know that guy!

      T

  • Tuvok said that Voyager could not withstand the creation of the universe.

  • Oh my God! Only 10 million years? (Score:3, Funny)

    by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Thursday September 19, 2002 @08:57PM (#4294132) Homepage Journal
    What's the point of anything if the universe is going to end so soon?

    Oh wait! You said 10 billion years! Never mind!

  • right... (Score:3, Funny)

    by tps12 ( 105590 ) on Thursday September 19, 2002 @08:58PM (#4294137) Homepage Journal
    We can't predict the weather tomorrow afternoon, but we know what's going to happen in 20 billion years. Tell me another one.
    • We can't predict the weather tomorrow afternoon, but we know what's going to happen in 20 billion years. Tell me another one.

      I live in England. Without going to the window I can tell you its raining now, it was raining yesterday, it will be raining tommorow, and it will be raining when the big crunch comes.

    • Yes, but tomorrow afternoon we will be able to see if the forecast was correct.

      The part about the universe is a bit tougher to verify.
  • "I personally prefer a universe that will collapse in on itself and then re-Big Bang so to speak, circle of life on a grand scale."

    Actually, as Steven Hawkins explains, a universe with matter spread infinitely flat in every direction ...with nothing else relative to it (since that would be in the known universe too) ... is mathematically and relatively exactly equal to a infinite point (from which the big bang starts!)

    Maybe someone can provide the exact quote of this theory. Thanks.

  • or is this really fucking vague? 10-20 billion years is a 10 billion year time difference...

    Way to go science and it's specifics.

  • Just another in a series (Score:3, Insightful)

    by photon317 ( 208409 ) on Thursday September 19, 2002 @09:25PM (#4294290)

    In a few years a different theory will emerge, ad infinitum. Astrophysics is a black art at this stage. It's important that we pursue it, but we all know that the "current theories" are just working models to help us along, they're almost always disproved and new models are born. It will be along time before we settle into a model that we can believe with some degree of certainty.
  • Personally, I prefer a universe where the forces pushing for eternal expansion and the forces trying to pull everything together in a big crunch...are perfectly balanced. Duh.
  • that someone forgot to carry the one.

  • Creationism (Score:2, Informative)

    by dolphin558 ( 533226 )
    The Big Bang theory concerning the origin of the universe was spawned about 50 years ago, and soon became the dogma of the evolutionary establishment. It has had many dissenters, however, including the British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, the Nobel laureate Hannes Alfven, and astronomers Geoffrey Burbidge and Halton Arp. According to the Big Bang theory, some 10 to 20 billion years ago, all of the matter and energy of the universe was compressed into a cosmic egg, or plasma ball, consisting of sub-atomic particles and radiation. Nobody knows where the cosmic egg came from, or how it got there -- it was just there. For some equally inexplicable reason, the cosmic egg exploded. As the matter and radiation expanded, so the theory says, it cooled sufficiently for elements to form, as protons and electrons combined to form hydrogen of atomic weight one, and neutrons were subsequently captured to form helium of atomic weight four. Most of the gas that formed consisted of hydrogen. These gases, it is then supposed, expanded radially in all directions throughout the universe until they were so highly dispersed that an extremely low vacuum and temperature existed. No oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon, sulfur, copper, iron, nickel, uranium, or other elements existed. The universe consisted essentially of hydrogen gas. Then somehow, we are told, the molecules of gas that were racing out at an enormous speed in a radial direction began to collapse in on themselves in local areas by gravitational attraction. The molecules within a space of about six trillion miles diameter collapsed to form each star, a hundred billion stars somehow collected to form each of the estimated 100 billion galaxies in the universe, and our own solar system formed about five billion years or so ago from a cloud of dust and gas made up of the exploded remnants of previously existing stars. No satisfactory theory exists to explain any of these events, but cosmologists remained firm in their conviction that all of these marvelous events would eventually yield to credible explanations. But now a cruel fate has befallen the grandest theory of all -- the Big Bang theory. Based on the Big Bang theory, cosmologists predicted that the distribution of matter throughout the universe would be homogeneous. Thus, based upon the so-called Cosmological Principle, it was postulated that the distribution of galaxies in the universe would be essentially uniform. No matter in which direction one looked, if one looked far enough, one would see the same number of galaxies. There would be no large scale clusters of galaxies or great voids in space. Recent research, however, has revealed massive superclusters of galaxies and vast voids in space. We exist in a very "clumpy" universe. The present crisis in Big Bang cosmologies began in 1986, when R. Brent Tully, of the University of Hawaii, showed that there were ribbons of superclusters of galaxies 300 million light-years long and 100 million light-years thick, stretching out about a billion light-years, and separated by voids about 300 million light-years across.[1] These structures are much too big for the Big Bang theory to produce. At the speeds at which galaxies are supposed to be moving, it would require 80 billion years to create such a huge complex, but the age of the universe is supposed to be somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years. In November of 1989, Margaret Geller and John Huchra, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, announced the results of their research. Their map of the sky revealed what they termed the "Great Wall" -- a huge sheet of galaxies 200 million light years across and 700 million light years long.[2] A team of American, British, and Hungarian astronomers, it is reported, discovered even larger structures.[3] They found galaxies clustered into thin bands spaced about 600 millon light years apart. The pattern of these clusters stretched across about one-fourth of the diameter of the universe, or about seven billion light years. This huge shell and void pattern would have required nearly 150 billion years to form, based on their speed of movement, if produced by the standard Big Bang cosmology. Even more recently (January 3, 1991), Will Saunders and nine fellow astronomers published the results of their all-sky redshift survey of galaxies detected by the Infrared Astronomical Satellite. This survey revealed the existence of a far-greater number of massive superclusters of galaxies than can be accounted for by Big Bang cosmologies.[4] In an attempt to salvage the Big Bang theory, cosmologists have invented hypotheses to explain the failures of their hypotheses. One of these is the Cold Dark Matter (CDM) theory. According to this theory, 90-99% of the matter in the universe cannot be detected. If CDM existed, it would supply sufficient gravitational pull to create large clusters of galaxies. The structures discovered during the past few years, however, are so massive that even if CDM did exist, it could not account for their formation. Saunders and co-workers thus state that the CDM model can be ruled out to at least the 97% confidence level. In the same issue of Nature, in which is found the article by Saunders, et al, there appears an article by David Lindley in the "News and Views" section (p. 14) entitled "Cold Dark Matter Makes an Exit." Caltech cosmologist S. George Djorgovski, taking into account the astronomical observations that contradict the CDM theory, states that the demise of the notion of the existence of cold dark matter is inevitable.[5] Also very recently, the U.S.-European Roentgen Satellite (ROSAT), detecting x-ray emissions, discovered evidence of giant superclusters of quasars on the edge of the universe, supposedly eight to 12 billion light years from the earth.[6] Physicist Paul Steinhardt, of the University of Pennsylvania, states that "This may be the start of the death knell of the cold-dark-matter theory. " Even if this hypothetical matter existed, it still could not explain the existence of these giant clusters of quasars. If all of this weren't bad enough news for Big Bang cosmologists, results from the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) should really make them wish they had gone into some other field. Based on the Big Bang theory, it was predicted that there should exist a background radiation equivalent to a few degrees Kelvin. Sure enough, in 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, radio engineers at Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey, discovered a microwave background radiation of 2.7ã K. Evolutionary cosmologists were absolutely delighted. This discovery was considered proof of the Big Bang, and Penzias and Wilson were duly awarded Nobel Prizes. It now appears, however, that the background radiation may turn out to be additional evidence against the Big Bang theory, rather than its proof. Since the Big Bang theory predicted a homogeneous universe with matter evenly distributed throughout the universe (which it most certainly is not, as described above), evolutionary cosmologists expected that the background radiation would be perfectly smooth. That is, no matter in which direction one looked, the background radiation would be the same. Just as predicted, the background radiation was perfectly smooth. Theorists were delighted, smug in the assurance that this background radiation was the leftover whimper of the Big Bang. Now, however, it turns out that the universe is not homogeneous, but is extremely lumpy, with massive superclusters of galaxies and great voids in space. Thus , if the background radiation is left over from the Big Bang, it should not be smooth, but should be more intense in certain directions than in others, indicating inhomogeneities at the very start of the universe, immediately following the initial moments of the Big Bang. Astronomers thus began to search for differences in the background radiations. All measurements showed it to be perfectly smooth. Thus COBE was launched to an orbit 559 miles above the earth, carrying sensitive instruments to measure the background radiation. Alas, preliminary data from COBE announced in January, show absolutely no evidence of inhomogeneity in the background radiation. It is perfectly smooth.[7] "No energetic processes, even unknown ones, could have occurred that were vigorous enough to either create the large-scale structures astronomers have observed or stop their headlong motion once created. There is simply no way to form these structures in the 20 billion years since the Big Bang."[8] Of course, the demise of the Big Bang theory will not discourage evolutionary theorists from proposing other theories. In fact, theories based on plasma processes and a revised steady-state theory have already been advanced to replace Big Bang cosmologies."[9],[10],[11] Eventually, all such theories will fail, for "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His handiwork" (Psalm 19:1).
    • arly 150 billion years to form, based on their speed of movement, if produced by the standard Big Bang cosmology. Even more recently (January 3, 1991), Will Saunders and nine fellow astronomers published the results of their all-sky redshift survey of galaxies detected by the Infrared Astronomical Satellite. This survey revealed the existence of a far-greater number of massive superclusters of galaxies than can be accounted for by Big Bang cosmologies.[4] In an attempt to salvage the Big Bang theory, cosmologists have invented hypotheses to explain the failures of their hypotheses. One of these is the Cold Dark Matter (CDM) theory. According to this theory, 90-99% of the matter in the universe cannot be detected. If CDM existed, it would supply sufficient gravitational pull to create large clusters of galaxies. The structures discovered during the past few years, however, are so massive that even if CDM did exist, it could not account for their formation. Saunders and co-workers thus state that the CDM model can be ruled out to at least the 97% confidence level. In the same issue of Nature, in which is found the article by Saunders, et al, there appears an article by David Lindley in the "News and Views" section (p. 14) entitled "Cold Dark Matter Makes an Exit." Caltech cosmologist S. George Djorgovski, taking into account the astronomical observations that contradict the CDM theory, states that the demise of the notion of the existence of cold dark matter is inevitable.[5] Also very recently, the U.S.-European Roentgen Satellite (ROSAT), detecting x-ray emissions, discovered evidence of giant superclusters of quasars on the edge of the universe, supposedly eight to 12 billion light years from the earth.[6] Physicist Paul Steinhardt, of the University of Pennsylvania, states that "This may be the start of the death knell of the cold-dark-matter theory. " Even if this hypothetical matter existed, it still could not explain the existence of these giant clusters of quasars. If all of this weren't bad enough news for Big Bang cosmologists, results from the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) should really make them wish they had gone into some other field. Based on the Big Bang theory, it was predicted that there should exist a background radiation equivalent to a few degrees Kelvin. Sure enough, in 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, radio engineers at Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey, discovered a microwave background radiation of 2.7ã K. Evolutionary cosmologists were absolutely delighted. This discovery was considered proof of the Big Bang, and Penzias and Wilson were duly awarded Nobel Prizes. It now appears, however, that the background radiation may turn out to be additional evidence against the Big Bang theory, rather than its proof. Since the Big Bang theory predicted a homogeneous universe with matter evenly distributed throughout the universe (which it most certainly is not, as described above), evolutionary cosmologists expected that the background radiation would be perfectly smooth. That is, no matter in which direction one looked, the background radiation would be the same. Just as predicted, the background radiation was perfectly smooth. Theorists were delighted, smug in the assurance that this background radiation was the leftover whimper of the Big Bang. Now, however, it turns out that the universe is not homogeneous, but is extremely lumpy, with massive superclusters of galaxies and great voids in space. Thus , if the background radiation is left over from the Big Bang, it should not be smooth, but should be more intense in certain directions than in others, indicating inhomogeneities at the very start of the universe, immediately following the initial moments of the Big Bang. Astronomers thus began to search for differences in the background radiations. All measurements showed it to be perfectly smooth. Thus COBE was launched to an orbit 559 miles above the earth, carrying sensitive instruments to measure the background radiation. Alas, preliminary data from COBE announced in January, show absolutely no evidence of inhomogeneity in the background radiation. It is perfectly smooth.[7] "No energetic processes, even unknown ones, could have occurred that were vigorous enough to either create the large-scale structures astronomers have observed or stop their headlong motion once created. There is simply no way to form these structures in the 20 billion years since the Big Bang."[8] Of course, the demise of the Big Bang theory will not discourage evolutionary theorists from proposing other theories. In fact, theories based on plasma processes and a revised steady-state theory have already been advanced to replace Big Bang cosmologies."[9],[10],[11] Eventually, all such theories will fail, for "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His handiwork" (Psalm 19:1).
      • show absolutely no evidence of inhomogeneity in the background radiation. It is perfectly smooth.[7] "No energetic processes, even unknown ones, could have occurred that were vigorous enough to either create the large-scale structures astronomers have observed or stop their headlong motion once created. There is simply no way to form these structures in the 20 billion years since the Big Bang."[8] Of course, the demise of the Big Bang theory will not discourage evolutionary theorists from proposing other theories. In fact, theories based on plasma processes and a revised steady-state theory have already been advanced to replace Big Bang cosmologies."[9],[10],[11] Eventually, all such theories will fail, for "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His handiwork" (Psalm 19:1).


    • > The Big Bang theory concerning the origin of the universe was spawned about 50 years ago, and soon became the dogma of the evolutionary establishment.

      If, as your subject line suggests, you were intending to paint a portrait of creationism, you did a damn fine job, because the big bang theory doesn't have anything to do with evolution, and the ignorant assertion in your first sentence is bang-on as a portrayal of the way creationists think.

      Or fail to think, to be more precise.

      • it could be seen as typical, yes: copy large text instead of refering to origin, then use it to state much all at once as fact, include names of many references, but then forget to provide the actual bibliography (note the numbered [x] references) ... and have trouble getting it into the text box (fear of technology?)

        yes, this is flamebait.


        • > it could be seen as typical, yes: copy large text instead of refering to origin, then use it to state much all at once as fact, include names of many references, but then forget to provide the actual bibliography (note the numbered [x] references)

          Most likely just cut-n-paste from some creationist Web site. Creationists are notorious for doing that on talk.origins, and forgetting to mention that they are just regurgitating someone else's screed.

          I would wager that you could find the source of this particular screed on some creationist Web site within a minute by using a search engine, if anyone cared enough to try. Or more likely on many creationist Web sites, since they tend to echo each other's screeds indiscriminately.

    • Whatever...... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jeramybsmith ( 608791 )
      Hawking and others have allowed for the presence of God in cosmology. Why is it that some people have a problem reconciling cosmology with their God? Did God create the universe with a big bang? Perhaps.... Why don't we observe the universe together and see instead of digging in and rejecting these ideas outright.

      I just don't understand people who say that they believe in a God who created the universe but close their ears against any attempt to see how he did so.

      • Really? I recall a passage in A Brief History of Time where he attends a science symposium in the early 70's and the Pope or one of his functionaries basically conceeds that the universe has been self-running since the Big Bang (which the nuns forgot to mention in my grammar school). Later in the chapter, Hawking rather fiendishly talks about how he figured out subsequently that time curves back on itself at the singularity, so there is no 'before' the big bang. He doesn't actually come out and say, "game. set. match," but that's the implication.

        Sorry, it's been a dozen years since I read it, so I don't have any quotes.

    • I have no idea from what creationist website you're haphazardly cutting-and-pasting this stuff, but it's pretty embarassing. For you, I mean.

      Criticizing a physical model plays a lot better when you have *some* basic understanding of the model itself. The description you give of the Big Bang model simply isn't an accurate one; it shows that you don't know what you're talking about. The goo you posted furthermore misquotes and misrepresents the references it cites, and makes misstatements a-plenty. I encourage you to actually take the time to learn some of the relevant physics, and then make an effort to learn what cosmologists and astrophysicists really do think, and why they think that; your screed helps you with none of those things.


      • > Criticizing a physical model plays a lot better when you have *some* basic understanding of the model itself. The description you give of the Big Bang model simply isn't an accurate one; it shows that you don't know what you're talking about. The goo you posted furthermore misquotes and misrepresents the references it cites, and makes misstatements a-plenty. I encourage you to actually take the time to learn some of the relevant physics, and then make an effort to learn what cosmologists and astrophysicists really do think, and why they think that; your screed helps you with none of those things.

        Why should they treat astronomy any different from the way they treat biology, geology, and every other field they see fit to drag into the argument?

      • I have no idea from what creationist website you're haphazardly cutting-and-pasting this stuff, but it's pretty embarassing.

        Google is your friend: here's one reference [icr.org] which indicates that this is a direct ripoff of an (ahem) "impact" by a "Duane T. Gish, Ph.D." copyright 1991 by the "Institute for Creation Research". And here I thought copyright violations were a sin...

    • I think both sides are rather difficult, because there remain so many unanswered questions. Take this imaginary dialog:
      God created it.
      Who is God?
      Well, the guy that created it.
      And how did he create all that?
      Well, he just did, because he has the power to do so.
      Why does he have all that power?
      Uh, because he is the almighty creator.
      So how did he get to be the almighty creator?
      He just is. He created the universe, so he has to be.
      So, one day he just got in the mood to whip one of those babies out.
      Yeah, because he is the creator and all.
      Oh, right.
      So how did he get to be the creator again?
      He has always been the creator.
      Right. So how did he get to always be the creator?
      By virtue of his attributes.
      Ok. Where did those attributes come from?
      They just are.
      Why?
      Because he's that way. The creator doesn't need to have a beginning.
      Ah, because then who created the creator, right?
      Yeah.
      So, what if the creator pulled himself out of a hat, sorta magician like?
      No, it doesn't work that way. The creator is eternal.
      Lucky guy.
      Lots of responsibility, though.
      Yeah. At least he gets to be his own boss, though.
      Right. Gives himself a holiday once a week. Well, he did once. Now he's too Busy watching us all the time.
      So, do you think he ever plays around with us the way we used to play with ant hills? You know, step on it, or flood it with water?
      Well, I suppose he might, but he's perfect, so it's not the same.
      Right.
      We go and sing for him sometimes. I think he likes that.
      Yeah, he probably does. I dunno about some of those TV programs, though. Breaking baseball bats and being obnoxious and all. Do you think he has a way to tune some of those out? Like, maybe he covers his ears and hums a tune?
      Heh, could be. But I don't think he minds. He's perfect, you know. No emotions or anything like that.
      Right.
      So how do you think all this stuff got here?
      Well, I think it just kinda happened. You know, just because it did. Didn't need a creator.
      • If you want to freak out religious missionaries, tell them the following after a long argument:

        "Okay, I'll tell you what. I will join your church right here and now if God makes an exact replica of this bench appear right next to it within the next 10 minutes. No further questions. I swear."

        Then start looking at your watch. The missionaries will start looking at each other and thinking hard. Sometimes they say, "Well.....that is not the way God works!" and just walk away.

        It is really fun to do. Almost more joy than a new computer.

        However, there is the slight risk that the missionary will punch you in the face to make you see double, and then say, "See, exact duplicate."
    • .. According to the Big Bang theory, some 10 to 20 billion years ago, all of the matter and energy of the universe was compressed into a cosmic egg, or plasma ball, consisting ..
      Would't that be: .. all the matter, energy, and space of the universe .. ?
    • Ignorance >= Bliss
    • >Nobody knows where the cosmic egg came from, or how it got there -- it was just there. For some equally inexplicable reason, the cosmic egg exploded.

      In the same way:
      Nobody knows where God came from, or how He got there -- He was just there. For some equally inexplicable reason, He created the universe.

      This is the problem with most creationist's arguments--they can never see that both ones are equally inexplicable. Except one yelled "thou shalt not kill" and was the first to have people violate it.

      Of course, God knows the future, so reality is deterministic, but at the same time we have free will. I haven't met any creationist able to step around that.

    • The field of cosmology has advanced at an incredible pace in the past decade, with major discoveries within the past calendar year. Much of the recently published evidence (i.e., fact, not opinion) addresses many of the points raised in this chunk of plagarism (the original article [icr.org] was authored by Duane T. Gish in 1991).

      Don't take my word for it; read up on the latest developments yourself. Even for someone that's not intimately familiar with the field, it's quite exciting.

      I suggest starting here [google.com].
  • These silly humans and their misguided faith in gravity. They won't be around long enough to see it since the big giant head plans on making Earth an intergalactic dump.

  • The Universe (Score:3, Funny)

    by extrasolar ( 28341 ) on Friday September 20, 2002 @02:14AM (#4295437) Homepage Journal
    Is like a zit on God's nose.

    See? You can unify Creationism and Big Bang.
  • This is a major threat to the safety and freedom of american citizens!
    I think that the US should try to stop this "Big Crunch", WITH OR WITHOUT support from the UN or the European nations...

    • I Agree! (Score:2, Funny)

      by cornjchob ( 514035 )
      I'm thinking that the greatest President we've ever seen, George W. Bush, should pull another states governer out of his/her office and give them a special job: Director of Universal Uncollapsablebility (a term first coined by our great, intelligent leader) Security. Therein that position lies the tiring task of giving us a color that would indicate just how close we are to dying in a horrible, cosmis collapse. The colors will range from Bridal White (no chance of collapse today) to Macaroni (who knows?) to Dark Black (kiss your ass goodbye). Other job details would be erecting giants statues of our President throughout the universe, thus holding the universe from collapsing due to the size of their ears. I'm sure that this idea, being the most sensible in this kind of situation, will be implemented by President Bush as soon as he sees the news. Thank god we have such a great person in office.
  • In 10 billion years, we'll figure out when the universe is really going to end.

  • Before everyone jumps on the big crunch bandwagon, read Freeman Dyson on the subject of signal to noise ratios as physical systems, such as the universe, expand and cool. Believe the book was "Infinite in All Directions".
  • You know, it's just that you get halfway through the existence of all things and you look back and think: What's really happened? I think it's time the universe got an earring and a motorcycle...
  • there's probably a good chance that some idiot will use some real big weapon that he shouldn't use, kill a lot of people, most likely over religous reasons. then others will retaliate. point is, i think that humans will have trouble learning to stanking use the resources given to them, and get along with others, therefore, i think that we will kill each other off long before 10 billion years.

    solution?

    hmm. well, the only thing i can come up with, is put all the stupid people on an island, and let them kill each other off. but then again.... so. yeah, i don't know about that.
    • there's probably a good chance that some idiot will use some real big weapon that he shouldn't use, kill a lot of people, most likely over religous reasons. then others will retaliate. point is, i think that humans will have trouble learning to stanking use the resources given to them, and get along with others, therefore, i think that we will kill each other off long before 10 billion years.

      Now, now. Most of the historical genocides have been culturally motivated, not religiously motivated.

      The Nazis killed people who were of hebrew descent, not just people who practiced as jews. Hussein and Milsoevick caused genocided against ethnic minorities, not just members of a particular religion.

      Sure, you can point to Ireland or the Crusades and say "but those are religious!", but they're really cultural; the Irish Catholics and the Irish Protestants are visibly differnet cultures, and the Crusaders sacked Constantinople in the 4th crusade, which was a Christian city.

      (side note: The Crusades were a great example of a good idea [go to war to get pilgrimage rights back] that went horribly wrong. The fact that some Muslims are sore about the war shouldn't preclude the use of a fine english word; after all, the Muslims tried to conquer Europe first.)
  • Damn! Based on the current progress rates, that is not enough time before an acceptable Linux desktop is available.
  • But surely once the universe begins to collapse in on itself the net entropy of the universe will begin to decrease.

    When that happens I think we're all pretty screwed.

    On the plus side, you'll be able to warm up cold coffee just by stirring :)

  • It looks like the Rolling Stones [slashdot.org] might outlive the Universe after all.

  • We're all gonna die!!!!
  • Y6B [knotmag.com] is a much bigger problem. If the sun burns out, who cares if the universe has crunched.

Slashdot Top Deals

Neutrinos have bad breadth.

Close