>>>Every second, in the Sun, 600 million tons of matter is converted to pure, radiant energy<<< (http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/educator/Sun1012.html)

I found the above information somewhere, there was more to the thread, it said that this is such an insignificant amount of material that it has no affect on the gravitational pull between the earth and the sun.

I got to thinking about it, and as I understand it from my layman's point of view, the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate. Now this may be an insignificant amount of matter for one Sun, but if you multiply it by the billions of stars then if it ceases to be an insignificant amount, could this be the reason that the universe appears to be expanding? If matter is being converted into energy then it can no longer have a gravitational affect? So the universe would expand wouldn't it?

So the universe would expand wouldn't it?

yeah ok, but what is it expanding into?

yeah ok, but what is it expanding into?
Infinity :cool:

How can that be. If it expanded then whatever it expanded into shrunk. Because the universe took some of its space. Unless that is growing too. :confused:

How can that be. If it expanded then whatever it expanded into shrunk. Because the universe took some of its space. Unless that is growing too. :confused:
The space hasn't shrunk, nor has it expanded, it's infinite

>>>Every second, in the Sun, 600 million tons of matter is converted to pure, radiant energy<<< (http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/educator/Sun1012.html)

I found the above information somewhere, there was more to the thread, it said that this is such an insignificant amount of material that it has no affect on the gravitational pull between the earth and the sun.

I got to thinking about it, and as I understand it from my layman's point of view, the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate. Now this may be an insignificant amount of matter for one Sun, but if you multiply it by the billions of stars then if it ceases to be an insignificant amount, could this be the reason that the universe appears to be expanding? If matter is being converted into energy then it can no longer have a gravitational affect? So the universe would expand wouldn't it?

One of the fundamental principles of physics is the "information" is never lost i.e. energy can be converted in to matter and matter into energy however nothing is ever lost...

yeah ok, but what is it expanding into?

I think it's being converted into Super-WalMarts :mad:

The space hasn't shrunk, nor has it expanded, it's infinite
You have to go back to pre 1950's thinking to find any support for that theory. But your entitled to your opinion rich, I'm sure you'll make Einstein turn in his grave.

I think a lot of assumptions we make about the universe is due to limited abstract revisualization on our part as humans. It's difficult concept to muster that the universe is expanding and that it was once just a point, but that is where most of the evidence lies. I know space seems infinite but that doesn’t mean it is.

I think a lot of assumptions we make about the universe is due to limited abstract revisualization on our part as humans.

Including the inability to accept or comprehend infinity :rolleyes:

I got to thinking about it, and as I understand it from my layman's point of view, the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate. Now this may be an insignificant amount of matter for one Sun, but if you multiply it by the billions of stars then if it ceases to be an insignificant amount, could this be the reason that the universe appears to be expanding? If matter is being converted into energy then it can no longer have a gravitational affect? So the universe would expand wouldn't it?

This depends on how you measure things, or your choice of coordinates.
In what are arguably the most reasonable coordinates, the cosmic time t and the distance D(t) measured entirely at the cosmic time t, the acceleration is given by g = -GM(r<D)/D2 where M(r<D) is the mass contained within radius D. This gives g = -(4*pi/3)*G*(rho(t)+3P(t)/c2)*D(t). The 3P/c2 term is a general relativistic correction to the otherwise Newtonian dynamics.

Galaxies all move under the influence of this acceleration and their initial position and velocity. In other words, F = ma and gravity provides the force. Nothing extra or weird is needed.

Including the inability to accept or comprehend infinity :rolleyes:
That just it rich infinity is just a manmade abstract to try and represent something that is so large is it impossible for us to quantify. Because of space time curvature if you moved in one direction in space you eventually end up in the same place but that doesn't mean that the universe is actually infinite in size.

Because of space time curvature if you moved in one direction in space you eventually end up in the same place
That's a theory

but that doesn't mean that the universe is actually infinite in size. nor does it mean it isn't :p

Including the inability to accept or comprehend infinity :rolleyes:

Possible if you replace infinity with unmeasurable

Possible if you replace infinity with unmeasurable
That would depend on how long the tape measure was :cool:

Endless ?
.
.

or, for as far as the eye can see :D

>>>Every second, in the Sun, 600 million tons of matter is converted to pure, radiant energy<<< (http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/educator/Sun1012.html)

I found the above information somewhere, there was more to the thread, it said that this is such an insignificant amount of material that it has no affect on the gravitational pull between the earth and the sun.

I got to thinking about it, and as I understand it from my layman's point of view, the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate. Now this may be an insignificant amount of matter for one Sun, but if you multiply it by the billions of stars then if it ceases to be an insignificant amount, could this be the reason that the universe appears to be expanding? If matter is being converted into energy then it can no longer have a gravitational affect? So the universe would expand wouldn't it?


An interesting idea but there is a possible explanation why this may not be the case. Gravity is actually a very weak force. A small child can throw a ball into the air that defeats the gravity of a whole planet - if only for a short time :) - The gravitational reactions between two bodies decrease in accordance with the inverse square law. So if gravitational pull is arbitarily 1 at distance 1 then at distance 3 gravitational pull is 1/9th that of distance 1.
What this means is that in the massive universe there is very little gravitational interaction between bodies in say different galaxies.

Secondly it's actually space that's expanding. I'm not even going to start on that topic as quite frankly even though we can observe the expansion via shifts in the wavelengths of light from distant stars no-one knows why it happens. The current contender is dark energy but it is a highly contentious theoretical idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

So the universe would expand wouldn't it?

Simple answer : Yes.
It's supposed to be "driven" by Quintessence.
Quintessence is the name for a particular model for the vacuum energy
which causes the accelerating expansion of the Universe.



Source :
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#MX

That's a theory

nor does it mean it isn't :p
Actually there are a number of experiments that back this up. There are different arguments as to what 'shape' the universe is. There are no experiments that prove that the universe is infinite.

From a theoretical physics point of view there could be dire consequences if the universe was actually infinite. Nothing would have an absolute location and if one objects location wasn't tenable then relativism would be meaningless. An object being of no location would mean it essentially doesn't exist. You couldn't be sure of where an object has come from or where its going. An infinite space/time would be a null space it can contain only nothing and it is nowhere.

What I was saying earlier about 'shape' and in previous post about the limitations of most humans. There are some humans (not me) who are able to visualise not only in three dimensions but in four or more, with these amazing cognitive skills, and abstract understand it gives you an advantage in solving some of the more complex problems. For most of us our understanding of the universe is that it is vast so it is easy to assume that it is infinite, but that doesn't fit the laws of nature.

Actually there are a number of experiments that back this up. There are different arguments as to what 'shape' the universe is. There are no experiments that prove that the universe is infinite.


Therein lies the problem for scientists, because they can't prove it by experimentation or an equation, they can't and won't accept it.
That doesn't mean infinity doesn't exist

but that doesn't fit the laws of nature.
It doesn't fit the laws of nature as we understand them but again it doesn't mean it doesn't exist

Therein lies the problem for scientists, because they can't prove it by experimentation or an equation, they can't and won't accept it.
That doesn't mean infinity doesn't exist

It doesn't fit the laws of nature as we understand them but again it doesn't mean it doesn't exist
Um, yes. But when two possibilities conflict, doesn't it make more sense to go with the one that has some evidence rather than the one that has none? Saying the universe is infinite because we haven't found the end is more of an assumption than a theory. Space-time curvature may only be a theoretical model, but it explains observable phenomenon and answers questions that previous theories were unable to answer.

Perhaps many scientists falsely believe that science is absolute, but I think most understand there are always possibilities beyond what we can prove, see or even imagine. But in order to accomplish anything, they must accept the best explanation currently available and work from there.

The two strangest (hard to imagine) aspect of the expanding universe is the possibility that the physical laws that govern the universe are expanding. No one has any idea of what lies beyond. So the human imagines nothing going on forever. Which is something Right?

The second is that the universe has expanded further than it could have (in its theoretical 13 billion years) if it were governed by the universal constant.

I believe it was Einstein who originally came up with the theroy that the universe is expanding, that space is curved and that energy and matter are inter-changable.

The problem is we won't be in a position to prove or disprove his work for about another 100,000 years.

I believe it was Einstein who originally came up with the theroy that the universe is expanding, that space is curved and that energy and matter are inter-changable.

The problem is we won't be in a position to prove or disprove his work for about another 100,000 years.


http://www.sdss.org/news/releases/20000413.qso.q.html

Actually Stoat you were augmenting my post more than answering statsman’s.
Don’t you find it bizarre that the universal constant (C, the speed of light) doesn’t apply to the expansion. And that in reality the laws are expanding. Definite food for occupying your mind in the morning traffic.

Actually Stoat you were augmenting my post more than answering statsman’s.
Don’t you find it bizarre that the universal constant (C, the speed of light) doesn’t apply to the expansion. And that in reality the laws are expanding. Definite food for occupying your mind in the morning traffic.

What i was trying to show was that we already know now - not in 100,000 years time - that the universe is expanding. Hubble found that out by experimentation in 1929 -iirc - we have the hubble constant as a result.

I don't actually think that it is strange.

You need to be clear about what you are defining. Space the "empty bit" between matter is actually something. That space is capable of moving.
The time honored visual representation is that of dots on a rubber sheet. Pull the sheet equally in all directions and the sheet expands and the dots move. You've simple expanded the space in which they sit.

So space is something. It can grow and maybe even shrink.

Now another visual representation of my own.

A swimming pool. You are a fish in the pool - a very clever fish :) - The shape of the pool can define some of the measurable properties of the the water in the pool i.e. the pressure at the bottom of the pool is a function of it's depth. As a fish you swim to the bottom and notice the pressure increase and you say "wow this pool must be deep".

But the pressure doesn't define the material that goes to make that pool, say concrete. We can infer things about the container that it's deep and perhaps strong but only so far.

The next step.

I think of the universe as a solid object that allows things to move through it -concrete water- odd maybe but it helps me :D . The solid object defines the properties of the things that are able to move through it and the movements they are allowed to make but it has it's own properties. As objects in the solid we can infer things about the solid from the interactions we have with it and those we can observe between it and other objects. We also observe interactions between other objects and ourselves.

This bit i have real trouble with. I think that objects in the solid are fundamentally limited in their ability to understand the solid because the solid cannot be described by the sum of our interactions with it or with the properties it bestows on us or other objects in it. It effectively defines the limits of what we can observe and therefore understand.

One of those properties of the solid we know is that it can expand at ever increasing speeds but anything that moves through it can only travel as fast as C. There is no obvious causal relationship between these two observations. At another fundamental level of physics they may be joined but we may also be limited in our understanding by virture of the fact that we exist in the solid.

Now my head hurts. :(

Anyway that's probably total BS but it helps me make sense of it and that's all the really matters. :)


TS

I have no idea of what you just said...

I'm still stuck on the crackers in bed thing :o

I have no idea of what you just said...

I'm still stuck on the crackers in bed thing :o

I prefer cookies far more in line with current thinking in physics :D

I think what Stoat is trying to say is that it appears the properties of the universe as a whole are very different than the properties of small, observable objects (like stars :p ). The ramification of this is that we can observe how the small objects behaive in the universe and we can infer things about the universe through those observations, but our understanding of the universe as a whole is limited because we can't observe the behavior of the universe as a whole.

Or I may have completely missed the point.

I think what Stoat is trying to say is that it appears the properties of the universe as a whole are very different than the properties of small, observable objects (like stars :p ). The ramification of this is that we can observe how the small objects behaive in the universe and we can infer things about the universe through those observations, but our understanding of the universe as a whole is limited because we can't observe the behavior of the universe as a whole.

Or I may have completely missed the point.


Sort of. I think that the Universe is made up of more than the observable portion. The Universe defines everything in it and the way it's done so prevents us from having the tools to understand all of it. The description of the sum of all the observable parts of the Universe is less than the description of the Universe as a whole.

Look at it this way. You've got the Physics of Einstein that talks about the large structures of the Universe, space and time. You've got quantum mechanics that describes the world of atoms. Possibly there is an over arching theory that will link the two. Possibly not. The possibly not part is that there could be a property of the Universe that creates the other properties we view as Einsteinien or Quantum and that is a third physics that is not observable or inferable by the the other two.

As a metaphor. When you use a normal microscope to look at a section of a plant. You can see cells and cellular structure such as cellular nuclei and perhaps cellular division. You can't see the atoms that make these structures. Light cannot differentiate things that small. We may have been handed a microscope by the Universe that only lets us look at a cellular level - Spacetime and Quantum. The physics that the Universe gives us may not contain anything to let us see what creates that physics in the first place.

TS

Wouldn't the fact that we even try to define and establish the concept of a 'Universe' mean that another one could exist? And then ... Well never mind. I think you've sold me on the cookies though :)

The physics that the Universe gives us may not contain anything to let us see what creates that physics in the first place.
Hmmm....well, yes that's certainly a possible explanation of why we haven't found the connection between quantum physics and general relativity. But I think the more probable explanation is that we simply haven't found it yet. There have been countless questions throughout history that science couldn't answer....and then someone found the answer. It just takes time and effort. That's not to say you're wrong, but we've barely scratched the surface in our knowledge of the universe, so I think it's a bit early to question whether it's possible to fully understand the universe or not.

Wouldn't the fact that we even try to define and establish the concept of a 'Universe' mean that another one could exist?
Well, sure. But if other universes exist it's not really relevant unless we can interact with them in some way.

..., so I think it's a bit early to question whether it's possible to fully understand the universe or not.

Especially when we can't even figure out Col & Rich... :p

Well, sure. But if other universes exist it's not really relevant unless we can interact with them in some way.

Relevant to what?

Especially when we can't even figure out Col & Rich... :p
We seek only the truth and social justice, what's there to figure out? :confused:

We seek only the truth and social justice, what's there to figure out? :confused:

Why your gameplan seems to be faltering? ;)

Relevant to what?
Relevant to us. If there is a universe that we can't interact with and doesn't affect us in any way, then there's not much value in pondering it.

We seek only the truth and social justice
Like a barrister, eh?

Relevant to us. If there is a universe that we can't interact with and doesn't affect us in any way, then there's not much value in pondering it.

IMHO an infinite percentage of the universe is irrelevant to us, but some still ponder it :rolleyes:

Hmmm....well, yes that's certainly a possible explanation of why we haven't found the connection between quantum physics and general relativity.
I think this will prove important in finding out about the universe. To understand the big we need to understand the small. Quantum mechanics seem to be random but what is really random anyway? It might be that we need this chaos; it's a sort of lifeblood of general mechanics. The thing is we are trying to solve the problem from the point of view that we understand the rules of general mechanics be aren't we merely looking at typical modelling. Just because we might be wrong doesn't mean there aren't rules there.

Hmmm....well, yes that's certainly a possible explanation of why we haven't found the connection between quantum physics and general relativity. But I think the more probable explanation is that we simply haven't found it yet. There have been countless questions throughout history that science could answer....and then someone found the answer. It just takes time and effort. That's not to say you're wrong, but we've barely scratched the surface in our knowledge of the universe, so I think it's a bit early to question whether it's possible to fully understand the universe or not.


Well, sure. But if other universes exist it's not really relevant unless we can interact with them in some way.


Actually it's a question that has been asked for quite sometime. Quantum physics and Relativity are physics of the early 20th century. For the last 80 odd years we've been using them to understand the universe but we've not been able to unite them.

I've been reading about brane theory. It's "relatively" new and it seems it clashes with what have become almost fundamental absolutes of modern physics and cosmology but i reckon it will be something really wacked out that actually ends up doing the job. The maths is way way beyond me but the ideas are interesting. That's why i like physics it's ideas are accesible even if the maths isn't.
http://www.esi-topics.com/brane/interviews/DrJian-XinLu.html

IMHO an infinite percentage of the universe is irrelevant to us, but some still ponder it :rolleyes:
Interesting choice of words since you must have pondered the universe in order to determine its relevancy ;)

BTW, if you believe the universe is infinite then discussing it in terms of percentage does not make sense since 50% of infinity is infinity. If you believe the universe is finite, then you cannot possibly measure more than 100% of the universe, so an "infinite percentage" doesn't exist.

It's been awhile since I nitpicked one of your posts. That was fun! :D

Actually it's a question that has been asked for quite sometime. Quantum physics and Relativity are physics of the early 20th century. For the last 80 odd years we've been using them to understand the universe but we've not been able to unite them.
That's actually my point. Even though the human race has made tremendous advances in the last 80 years, it's really a drop in the bucket compared to the whole of human history. So it's just too soon to seriously suggest we might never find an answer.

Interesting choice of words since you must have pondered the universe in order to determine its relevancy ;)

BTW, if you believe the universe is infinite then discussing it in terms of percentage does not make sense since 50% of infinity is infinity. If you believe the universe is finite, then you cannot possibly measure more than 100% of the universe, so an "infinite percentage" doesn't exist.

It's been awhile since I nitpicked one of your posts. That was fun! :D

Just wait till you get back in the 'Boxing Ring' :p :D

Interesting choice of words since you must have pondered the universe in order to determine its relevancy ;)

:mad:


BTW, if you believe the universe is infinite then discussing it in terms of percentage does not make sense since 50% of infinity is infinity. If you believe the universe is finite, then you cannot possibly measure more than 100% of the universe, so an "infinite percentage" doesn't exist.



But, can't there be an infinite number up to 100 (100%) i.e. .99999... (?) :eek:

But, can't there be an infinite number up to 100 (100%) i.e. .99999... (?) :eek:
Your original words were "infinite percentage". A percentage is a fraction of the whole, which - by definition - can never be more than 100 unless relative to something else. You can divide the whole into infinitely small fractions, yes, but only if you believe the universe is finite. Otherwise, ∞/999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 is still ∞.

Like a barrister, eh?
Or http://www.movieconnection.it/schede/pantera_rosa1.jpg

:cool:

Your original words were "infinite percentage". A percentage is a fraction of the whole, which - by definition - can never be more than 100 unless relative to something else. You can divide the whole into infinitely small fractions, yes, but only if you believe the universe is finite. Otherwise, ∞/999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 is still ∞.

http://img.epinions.com/images/opti/7a/e1/Goody_s_Extra_Strength_Headache_Powder-resized200.jpg

:mad:




But, can't there be an infinite number up to 100 (100%) i.e. .99999... (?) :eek:
Surely that's just a recurring number, not an infinite one? :confused:

LOL That was fantastic! I'm almost in tears... Oh, man....

Interesting choice of words since you must have pondered the universe in order to determine its relevancy ;)

BTW, if you believe the universe is infinite then discussing it in terms of percentage does not make sense since 50% of infinity is infinity. If you believe the universe is finite, then you cannot possibly measure more than 100% of the universe, so an "infinite percentage" doesn't exist.
An infinite present as in ∞% equals ∞ and therefore is not a percentage of anything. But 100% of ∞ being ∞ is still ∞ but so is abs(n)% of ∞ except for n=0. Total philosophy though. So a fraction of ∞ is not a fraction and only equates when it is not a number. Total philosophy though because 0 and ∞ only exist as a conceptual tool.

An infinite present as in ∞% equals ∞ and therefore is not a percentage of anything. But 100% of ∞ being ∞ is still ∞ but so is abs(n)% of ∞ except for n=0. Total philosophy though. So a fraction of ∞ is not a fraction and only equates when it is not a number. Total philosophy though because 0 and ∞ only exist as a conceptual tool.
This is pretty much just a restatement of what I said (as far as I can tell) except for the last line, which I found fascinating. I hadn't really thought about the concept of 0, since it is a rather basic concept and easy to understand and visualize. Also, it is a component of numbers that do exists, like 10. But when you think about it, it's weird that 0 doesn't really exist and it only serves as a reminder of potential.

>>> Expanding Waste line <<<< (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18825194.800)

This is pretty much just a restatement of what I said (as far as I can tell) except for the last line, which I found fascinating. I hadn't really thought about the concept of 0, since it is a rather basic concept and easy to understand and visualize. Also, it is a component of numbers that do exists, like 10. But when you think about it, it's weird that 0 doesn't really exist and it only serves as a reminder of potential.
Sorry it was meant to be a restatement.:) You should watch the story of 1 (BBC) hopefully they will put it on DVD to order. It is narrated by Terry Gilliam from Monty Python. Basically the idea of 0 sound easy to you or me but the Summerians, Egyptians, and various other early counting civilisations did not have 0. It was the Indians that cracked it (Arabic numerals are actually Indian not Arabic.) There also came up with the idea that you would have a symbol for numbers 1-9 instead of a series of 1's and symbols for tens, thousands, etc. But the real breakthrough came when they combined 0 with 1 and the other numbers and therefore didn't have to create more and more impossibly big numbers (and symbols). Number comes as a requirement for civilisation. Aboriginal tribes have a word for 1 but anything else is 'many'. They don't require numbers because they can navigate the outback through songs.

>>> Expanding Waste line <<<< (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18825194.800)

Ha... Waste Line. Now that's funny :p

Basically the idea of 0 sound easy to you or me but the Summerians, Egyptians, and various other early counting civilisations did not have 0.
That’s amazing when you think about it. Our entire thought process is partly based on understanding numbers from an early age. Our brains actually develop structure to deal with it. It’s hard to imagine a culture without that concept.

That’s amazing when you think about it. Our entire thought process is partly based on understanding numbers from an early age. Our brains actually develop structure to deal with it. It’s hard to imagine a culture without that concept.
That is becuase our number system contains 0 in it. If you look at the summerians they had little clay tokens representing 1. You can put clay tokens on the table you can take them away. If you take all the clay token off the table there as far as they are conserned there are no clay tokens on the table but they didn't have zero as a symbol. As far as a structure in the brain is conserned there is a part of the brain that deals with the abstract. However for most of us that number system needs to be learned.

There's evidence that your brain develops structures as you learn. I can’t remember where I saw that, but I think it was The Discovery Channel. You could probably search the records at Nature Magazine to find out more.

That is becuase our number system contains 0 in it. If you look at the summerians they had little clay tokens representing 1. You can put clay tokens on the table you can take them away. If you take all the clay token off the table there as far as they are conserned there are no clay tokens on the table but they didn't have zero as a symbol. As far as a structure in the brain is conserned there is a part of the brain that deals with the abstract. However for most of us that number system needs to be learned.

Is that symbolization necessary? As you state they were aware of the concept of nothing. Is the lack of a token in itself symbolic and the ulimate in abstract.


The lack of tablet called 0 could be because their mathematical structure had a place for an empty space. The lack of a tablet was symbolic of 0.

Like; Lets work out how many sheep we have in the village.

Fred:---------------8
Bob:----------------5
John the sheepless:
Kevin:--------------3
Total:--------------16

:confused:

There's evidence that your brain develops structures as you learn.


Does this mean it breaks down as we forget stuff? :confused:


I can’t remember where I saw that, but ...

Would it mean your's just broke down? :D

One of the fundamental principles of physics is the "information" is never lost i.e. energy can be converted in to matter and matter into energy however nothing is ever lost...

True, true..but by observation only. The 'laws' of physics are by no mean immutable. They are essentially the best conclusions drawn based on what data is available now. How do we know things might not change? Something new might be discovered.

By example, when Newton first developed equations for Classical Dynamics, energy (kinetic, for example) could be modeled by E = 1/2 mv^2. This worked perfectly for all practical purposes for hundreds of years. Then, come the advent of heavy-massed objects (or high-velocity), and this did not hold. Enter Einstein's relativity and that equation was more precisely realized as E = Y m c ^ 2 - m c ^ 2, where Y = 1/(1 - (V^2)/(c^2))^0.5 to account for all cases, low velocity (like we normally would use) but also high-velocity and high-mass frames. (c is the speed of light, 8 x 10^8 m/s) Plug in numbers, and see that the more complex reduces down to simply E = 1/2 mv^2 extremely well, but it's not absolutely correct, only an approximation.

So then, physics is a model - a tool, if you will. To describe what we observe. It is not absolute truth. The reality of what is the truth may escape us, but for the meantime, physicists base their 'laws' on what is onhand with observational evidence.

In the nuclear furnace of a sun, matter undergoes fusion and transfers to a huge amount of energy, and energy 'particles' - neutrinos, photons, etc. So there is a definite output to the Sun on a mass basis - part of it's mass is converted to energy, which when leaves the Sun in the form of light, IR, EM, et al waves, particles, and is gone from the 'Sun' system. So unless there is a energy/mass input to the Sun, it will definitely shrink. Slowly, but it will according to what's known. But who's to say that the energy/matter will not be conserved? So far, it sure looks like this will not be changed since evidence supports it in our immediate realm of the Earth for obervation. What evidence is there from the Sun? The available data cannot provide sufficient evidence to prove energy will be conserved with sufficient precision, it's just assumed that it will be. Maybe you're not isolating the scope of your argument (what does the rule apply to?), but don't dogmatically state something will or will not happen if you have no proof behind it.

The Sun and fusion are really unproven for the fundamental laws, precision and ability to observe the entire system is simply not there, so we don't know what really happens. On one hand, scientific rigor and discpline should always be exercised, but putting down an honest question about the fundamental nature of anything like your response does, takes away the impulse to pursue intellectual curiosity - one of the human flaws that have bereaved dreams of realization of truth from those courageous enough to dream them. I'm certain this has occurred many times over the eons of human history.

Here's my theory (btw I just love the subject :-) ):

The expanding of the universe is the effect of the big bang that gave birth to it. Try imagining the amount of energy this created when you know the universe is still expanding...

Now, I personally don't believe in infinity. There might be a reason why we can't grasp the concept of infinity : it just doesn't exist...

Thus: the expansion of the universe will one day stop. Wether or not it will shrink back to it's original state (a singularity) seems doubtfull to me...

How do I see the universe? Kinda like I see our galaxy, the Milky Way: A collection of galaxies caught in each others gravitational pull, or maybe a super-singularity in the middle of it all (probably not since that super-singularity exploded with a big bang).

one thing I'm practically sure of is that this isn't the only universe. There must be others beyond it... It's portrayed beautifully by the movie 'Men In Black'. The universe, that looks immense to us, might be relatively small in perspective to other entities or other things. Thus the possibility exists that our universe is just one of many, just like our Milky Way is only one of many Galaxies.

I could go on and on with this... :-D

Oh, by the way: these are only my thoughts and points-of-view. I do not pretend to know how it all works, nobody does... It's just a possibility! :-)

For those who believe the big bang theory, whenever an explosion reaches it's maximum bubble, it normally contracts into a smaller area before sending out a shock wave. Do you think that will happen with the universe?

For those who believe the big bang theory...
How could anyone deny the existence of big bangs??? :confused:
http://www.vintageblues.com/the80s/bana.jpg

For those who believe the big bang theory,


The evidence is irrefutable :cool:


http://ufologist.bravehost.com/007%20God%20Big%20Bang%20Cartoon.jpg

For those who believe the big bang theory, whenever an explosion reaches it's maximum bubble, it normally contracts into a smaller area before sending out a shock wave. Do you think that will happen with the universe?

This observation occurs for explosions in our atmosphere (i.e. not in a vacuum). This phenomena occurs due to a pressure wave (which must have a medium, such as air). The Big Bang would have occured in the absence of everything. So you can't really say that the universe would contract.